Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro definitions | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:16:44 -0700 |
| |
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:32:52 AM Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 07:39 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, > > > > > please let us know. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com> > > > > > > > > > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream. > > > > > > > > > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in > > > > > parenthesis to avoid unpleasant surprises. > > > > > > > > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing > > > > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'? > > > > > > In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the > > > current code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix > > > in the kernel could cause a serious regression when backported to > > > -stable. For instance, > > > > > if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) : > > [...] > > > > I agree, but would like to know whether there is an immediate effect. > > No immediate breakage, AFAIK. Dmitry found the issue by inspection.
Right, mainline (and next) appear to be safe at the moment.
Thanks, Dmitry
| |