* Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
[not found] <e11b8f5e-1b85-fe24-36d5-c8d707ce4e66@wp.pl>
@ 2020-09-01 12:06 ` antoni.przybylik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: antoni.przybylik @ 2020-09-01 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH, linux-kernel, devel
On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
>> Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
>> #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
>> GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
>> This macro will be expanded in such a way:
>> (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
>> And it will lead to errors.
> This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some
value like that:
GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
> But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> this should really be, not a macro.
How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
Antoni Przybylik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
@ 2020-09-01 12:06 ` antoni.przybylik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: antoni.przybylik @ 2020-09-01 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH, linux-kernel, devel
On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
>> Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
>> #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
>> GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
>> This macro will be expanded in such a way:
>> (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
>> And it will lead to errors.
> This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some
value like that:
GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
> But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> this should really be, not a macro.
How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
Antoni Przybylik
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
2020-09-01 12:06 ` antoni.przybylik
@ 2020-09-01 12:21 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-09-01 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: antoni.przybylik; +Cc: Greg KH, linux-kernel, devel
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, antoni.przybylik@wp.pl wrote:
> On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
> > > Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
> > > #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > > GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
> > > This macro will be expanded in such a way:
> > > (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
> > > And it will lead to errors.
> > This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
>
> Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some value
> like that:
>
> GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
That won't compile at all, because it expands to "gdm + 0x1000->tty_dev".
>
> > But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> > that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> > this should really be, not a macro.
>
> How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
Yeah. If you want. Or you could just find something else to patch.
Probably just find a different bug and fix that instead... If at first
you don't succeed, there are tons of other stuff to work on and maybe
you will succeed there. ;)
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
@ 2020-09-01 12:21 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2020-09-01 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: antoni.przybylik; +Cc: devel, Greg KH, linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, antoni.przybylik@wp.pl wrote:
> On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
> > > Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
> > > #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > > GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
> > > This macro will be expanded in such a way:
> > > (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
> > > And it will lead to errors.
> > This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
>
> Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some value
> like that:
>
> GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
That won't compile at all, because it expands to "gdm + 0x1000->tty_dev".
>
> > But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> > that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> > this should really be, not a macro.
>
> How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
Yeah. If you want. Or you could just find something else to patch.
Probably just find a different bug and fix that instead... If at first
you don't succeed, there are tons of other stuff to work on and maybe
you will succeed there. ;)
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
2020-09-01 12:06 ` antoni.przybylik
@ 2020-09-01 13:10 ` Greg KH
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2020-09-01 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: antoni.przybylik; +Cc: linux-kernel, devel
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, antoni.przybylik@wp.pl wrote:
> On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
> > > Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
> > > #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > > GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
> > > This macro will be expanded in such a way:
> > > (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
> > > And it will lead to errors.
> > This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
>
> Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some value
> like that:
>
> GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
In this driver? And adding random numbers to a pointer should not be
common, when those pointers are structures, right?
> > But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> > that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> > this should really be, not a macro.
>
> How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
If you wish to fix this up, please do, I can't take this as-is.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets
@ 2020-09-01 13:10 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2020-09-01 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: antoni.przybylik; +Cc: devel, linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, antoni.przybylik@wp.pl wrote:
> On 01.09.2020 13:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:43:11PM +0200, antoniprzybylik wrote:
> > > Such macros are dangerous. Consider following example:
> > > #define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> > > GDM_TTY_READY(a + b)
> > > This macro will be expanded in such a way:
> > > (a + b && a + b->tty_dev && a + b->port.count)
> > > And it will lead to errors.
> > This is for a pointer, no one would ever do that :)
>
> Nobody adds a pointer to a pointer, but it's common to add to it some value
> like that:
>
> GDM_TTY_READY(myptr + 0x1000)
In this driver? And adding random numbers to a pointer should not be
common, when those pointers are structures, right?
> > But, if you really worry about this, turn it into an inline function,
> > that way you get the proper typedef safety, which is what something like
> > this should really be, not a macro.
>
> How to do it? Do I need to send another patch?
If you wish to fix this up, please do, I can't take this as-is.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-01 13:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <e11b8f5e-1b85-fe24-36d5-c8d707ce4e66@wp.pl>
2020-09-01 12:06 ` Fwd: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm724x: gdm_tty: corrected macro by adding brackets antoni.przybylik
2020-09-01 12:06 ` antoni.przybylik
2020-09-01 12:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-09-01 12:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2020-09-01 13:10 ` Greg KH
2020-09-01 13:10 ` Greg KH
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.