Hi Martin,
Martin Vahlensieck wrote on Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 07:16:46PM +0200:
> This makes these array derefs consistent with the others in the file.
> Also I believe this is the preferred way to do this.
That depends. In mandoc, i certainly prefer "pointer + offset"
over "&pointer[offest]", arguing that pointer[offest] is defined
as mere syntactic sugar for *(pointer + offset), so to me
personally, "&pointer[offest]" feels like a slight detour.
But it looks like a matter of personal taste to me, and i doubt
that OpenBSD in general prefers one or the other.
Both are certainly correct, and i consider both readable.
Either way, this doesn't feel like an issue important enough
to patch one way or the other.
I can't really speak for the kernel, but that shouldn't matter
because this doesn't feel like a question specific to the kernel.
Yours,
Ingo
> Index: kern_unveil.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_unveil.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.39
> diff -u -p -r1.39 kern_unveil.c
> --- kern_unveil.c 22 Mar 2020 20:23:36 -0000 1.39
> +++ kern_unveil.c 4 Apr 2020 17:08:00 -0000
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ unveil_destroy(struct process *ps)
> size_t i;
>
> for (i = 0; ps->ps_uvpaths != NULL && i < ps->ps_uvvcount; i++) {
> - struct unveil *uv = ps->ps_uvpaths + i;
> + struct unveil *uv = &ps->ps_uvpaths[i];
>
> struct vnode *vp = uv->uv_vp;
> /* skip any vnodes zapped by unveil_removevnode */
> @@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ unveil_copy(struct process *parent, stru
> child->ps_uvncount = 0;
> for (i = 0; parent->ps_uvpaths != NULL && i < parent->ps_uvvcount;
> i++) {
> - struct unveil *from = parent->ps_uvpaths + i;
> - struct unveil *to = child->ps_uvpaths + i;
> + struct unveil *from = &parent->ps_uvpaths[i];
> + struct unveil *to = &child->ps_uvpaths[i];
> struct unvname *unvn, *next;
>
> to->uv_vp = from->uv_vp;
> @@ -267,8 +267,8 @@ unveil_copy(struct process *parent, stru
> }
> child->ps_uvvcount = parent->ps_uvvcount;
> if (parent->ps_uvpcwd)
> - child->ps_uvpcwd = child->ps_uvpaths +
> - (parent->ps_uvpcwd - parent->ps_uvpaths);
> + child->ps_uvpcwd =
> + &child->ps_uvpaths[parent->ps_uvpcwd - parent->ps_uvpaths];
> child->ps_uvdone = parent->ps_uvdone;
> child->ps_uvshrink = parent->ps_uvshrink;
> }
