Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:36:24 +0100 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: + markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes.patch added to -mm tree |
| |
On 28/02/2008, akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > The patch titled > markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes > has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is > markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes.patch > <snip> > Subject: markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >
Andrew, I very much do not agree with you and/or checkpatch here :
> WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks > #34: FILE: kernel/marker.c:715: > + if (!entry) { > + goto end; > + } > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 29 lines checked > > ./patches/markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker.patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors > are false positives report them to the maintainer, see > CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > Please run checkpatch prior to sending patches > > Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> > Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > kernel/marker.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff -puN kernel/marker.c~markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes kernel/marker.c > --- a/kernel/marker.c~markers-dont-risk-null-deref-in-marker-checkpatch-fixes > +++ a/kernel/marker.c > @@ -702,9 +702,8 @@ int marker_probe_unregister(const char * > > mutex_lock(&markers_mutex); > entry = get_marker(name); > - if (!entry) { > + if (!entry) > goto end; > - } > if (entry->rcu_pending) > rcu_barrier(); > old = marker_entry_remove_probe(entry, probe, probe_private); > @@ -712,9 +711,8 @@ int marker_probe_unregister(const char * > marker_update_probes(); /* may update entry */ > mutex_lock(&markers_mutex); > entry = get_marker(name); > - if (!entry) { > + if (!entry) > goto end; > - } > entry->oldptr = old; > entry->rcu_pending = 1; > /* write rcu_pending before calling the RCU callback */
While it is entirely true that the compiler has no need for the extra {} they are very nice for human readers/editors of the code - and if what's inside happens to be a macro, also potentially safer.
I left them in very much on purpose.
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
| |