Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 12:43:30 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] usercopy structs for v5.4-rc2
Message-ID: <20191004194330.GA1478788@archlinux-threadripper>
References: <20191004104116.20418-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
 <CAHk-=whxf5HVdaXqL6RgHCLzb2LNn3U2n_x4GWQZroCC+evRoA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whxf5HVdaXqL6RgHCLzb2LNn3U2n_x4GWQZroCC+evRoA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 10:53:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> >            The only separate fix we we had to apply
> > was for a warning by clang when building the tests for using the result of
> > an assignment as a condition without parantheses.
> 
> Hmm. That code is ugly, both before and after the fix.
> 
> This just doesn't make sense for so many reasons:
> 
>         if ((ret |= test(umem_src == NULL, "kmalloc failed")))
> 
> where the insanity comes from
> 
>  - why "|=" when you know that "ret" was zero before (and it had to
> be, for the test to make sense)
> 
>  - why do this as a single line anyway?
> 
>  - don't do the stupid "double parenthesis" to hide a warning. Make it
> use an actual comparison if you add a layer of parentheses.
> 
> So
> 
>         if ((x = y))
> 
> is *wrong*. I know the compiler suggests that, but the compiler is
> just being stupid, and the suggestion comes from people who don't have
> any taste.
> 
> If you want to test an assignment, you should just use
> 
>         if ((x = y) != 0)
> 
> instead, at which point it's not syntactic noise mind-games any more,
> but the parenthesis actually make sense.
> 
> However, you had no reason to use an assignment in the conditional in
> the first place.
> 
> IOW, the code should have just been
> 
>         ret = test(umem_src == NULL, "kmalloc failed");
>         if (ret) ...

Yes, I had this as the original fix but I tried to keep the same
intention as the original author. I should have gone with my gut. Sorry
for the ugliness, I'll try to be better in the future.

Cheers,
Nathan