On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:19 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> Having said that there are so few users of list_entry_is_head()
> it is reasonable to generate two new names.
Well, the problem is that the users of list_entry_is_head() may be few
- but there are a number of _other_ ways to check "was that t
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 01 March 2022 23:03
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Laight wrote:
> >
> > Can it be resolved by making:
> > #define list_entry_is_head(pos, head, member) ((pos) == NULL)
> > and double-checking that it isn't used anywhere else (except in
> > the list macros t
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> Can it be resolved by making:
> #define list_entry_is_head(pos, head, member) ((pos) == NULL)
> and double-checking that it isn't used anywhere else (except in
> the list macros themselves).
Well, yes, except for the fact that then the name i
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 01 March 2022 19:07
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:29 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> >
> > However, if the desire is really to poison the loop variable then we
> > can do
> >
> > #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \
> > for (pos
So looking at this patch, I really reacted to the fact that quite
often the "use outside the loop" case is all kinds of just plain
unnecessary, but _used_ to be a convenience feature.
I'll just quote the first chunk in it's entirely as an example - not
because I think this chunk is particularly im
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So instead of that simple "if (!entry)", we'd effectively have to
> continue to use something that still works with the old world order
> (ie that "if (list_entry_is_head())" model).
Just to prove my point about how this is painful, that d
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:29 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> However, if the desire is really to poison the loop variable then we
> can do
>
> #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \
> for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);\
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:14:07AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:45:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Really. The "-Wshadow doesn't work on the kernel" is not some new
> > issue, because you have to do completely insane things to the source
> > code to enable it.
>
> The
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:14 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> The first big glitch with -Wshadow was with shadowed global variables.
> GCC 4.8 fixed that, but it still yells about shadowed functions. What
> _almost_ works is -Wshadow=local.
Heh. Yeah, I just have long memories of "-Wshadow was a disaster"
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:45:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Really. The "-Wshadow doesn't work on the kernel" is not some new
> issue, because you have to do completely insane things to the source
> code to enable it.
The first big glitch with -Wshadow was with shadowed global variables.
GCC
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> Based on the coccinelle script there are ~480 cases that need fixing
> in total. I'll now finish all of them and then split them by
> submodules as Greg suggested and repost a patch set per submodule.
> Sounds good?
To help with this
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:06:57PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 28. Feb 2022, at 12:20, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:18PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >> If the list does not contain the expected element, the value of
> >> list_for_each_entry() iterator will n
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 06:40:04PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 1. Mar 2022, at 18:36, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be
> >> great.
> >
>
> On 1. Mar 2022, at 18:36, Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel
>>> wrote:
The goal of this is to get compiler war
> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>
>> The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be
>> great.
>
> Yes, so I don't mind having a one-time patch that has been gathered
> using some automa
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:14:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:10 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> > We can do
> >
> > typeof(pos) pos
> >
> > in the 'for ()' loop, and never use __iter at all.
> >
> > That means that inside the for-loop, we use a _different_
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:45 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
> ...
> > Just from skimming over the patches to change this and experience
> > with the drivers/subsystems I help to maintain I think the primary
> > pattern looks something like this:
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(entry, head, member) {
> >
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 28.02.22 um 20:56 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:19 AM Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > I don't think that using the extra variable makes the code in any
> > > way
> > > more reliable or easier to read.
> > So I
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:56 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>
> Am 28.02.22 um 21:42 schrieb James Bottomley:
> > On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 28.02.22 um 20:56 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:19 AM Christian König
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 20:16 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:10:24PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > We can do
> >
> > typeof(pos) pos
> >
> > in the 'for ()' loop, and never use __iter at all.
> >
> > That means that inside the for-loop, we use a _different_ 'p
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:28:58PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 23:59 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > On February 28, 2022 10:42:53 PM GMT+02:00, James Bottomley <
> > james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian Köni
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 23:59 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> On February 28, 2022 10:42:53 PM GMT+02:00, James Bottomley <
> james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
[...]
> > > > I do wish we could actually poison the 'pos' value a
Hi
2022. február 28., hétfő 23:28 keltezéssel, James Bottomley írta:
> [...]
> Well, yes, but my objection is more to the size of churn than the
> desire to do loop local. I'm not even sure loop local is possible,
> because it's always annoyed me that for (int i = 0; ... in C++ defines
> i in t
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 16:41:04 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So yes, initially my idea had been to just move the iterator entirely
> inside the macro. But specifying the type got so ugly that I think
> that
>
> typeof (pos) pos
>
> trick inside the macro really ends up giving us the best of
25 matches
Mail list logo
