From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753997AbdK1MTz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:19:55 -0500
Received: from mail01.prevas.se ([62.95.78.3]:2416 "EHLO mail01.prevas.se"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753760AbdK1MTx (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:19:53 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,468,1505772000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="2880373"
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Make - vs ?: precedence explicit
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20171122205645.GA27125@beast>
From: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
Message-ID: <a3b338a1-95c5-1e7e-9b5c-d924a760078e@prevas.dk>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:19:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171122205645.GA27125@beast>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.16.8.31]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2017-11-22 21:56, Kees Cook wrote:
> Noticed with a Clang build. This improves the readability of the ?:
> expression, as it has lower precedence than the - expression. Show
> explicitly that - is evaluated first.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/matrix.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/matrix.c b/kernel/irq/matrix.c
> index a3cbbc8191c5..7df2480005f8 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/matrix.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/matrix.c
> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ unsigned int irq_matrix_available(struct irq_matrix *m, bool cpudown)
>  {
>  	struct cpumap *cm = this_cpu_ptr(m->maps);
>  
> -	return m->global_available - cpudown ? cm->available : 0;
> +	return (m->global_available - cpudown) ? cm->available : 0;
>  }

I see that this got applied, and that doesn't change the semantics of
the code. But surely the code is and was buggy, right? From the kernel
doc, I'm pretty sure the idea is to subtract cm->available if cpudown is
true, otherwise subtract 0, i.e.

  return m->global_available - (cpudown ? cm->available : 0);

Rasmus