[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFPEEVvHTw2uukun@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 17:41:21 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] list.h: Fix parentheses around macro pointer
parameter use
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:29:12PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Add missing parentheses around use of macro argument "pos" in those
> patterns to ensure operator precedence behaves as expected:
>
> - typeof(*pos)
> - pos->member
>
> Remove useless parentheses around use of macro parameter (head) in the
> following pattern:
>
> - list_is_head(pos, (head))
>
> Because comma is the lowest priority operator already, so the extra pair
> of parentheses is redundant.
>
> This corrects the following usage pattern where operator precedence is
> unexpected:
>
> LIST_HEAD(testlist);
>
> struct test {
> struct list_head node;
> int a;
> };
>
> // pos->member issue
> void f(void)
> {
> struct test *t1;
> struct test **t2 = &t1;
I'm not against the patch, but I'm in doubt, looking into this example, it's useful.
Any real use case like above in the Linux kernel, please?
> list_for_each_entry((*t2), &testlist, node) { /* works */
> //...
> }
> list_for_each_entry(*t2, &testlist, node) { /* broken */
> //...
> }
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists