netdev - Re: [1/1] net: pegasus: remove dead coding

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160518075045.GC4388@p310>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 10:50:45 +0300
From:	Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
	Petko Manolov <petkan@...leusys.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [1/1] net: pegasus: remove dead coding

On 16-05-18 09:15:40, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-17 at 23:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:13:30AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > (!count || count < 4) is always true.
> > 
> > Even if count >= 4 ?
> 
> The check for !count is redundant, though. Gcc, however,
> will surely simplify the expression.

Yep, gcc-6 generates this code:

	...
	cmp	$0x3,%edx
	jle	b9 <read_bulk_callback+0x69>
	...

Which does not invalidate your statement that "!count" is redundant. :)


		Petko