Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:58:21 -0400
From:   Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
        Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>, linux-audit@redhat.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: avoid -Wempty-body warning
Message-ID: <20210322175821.GO3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <20210322114536.3517661-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <20210322143344.GN3141668@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
 <CAK8P3a2NkB7COUetdq65cSNjVe7-96c44=4JE5BXkBwXG-5nyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2NkB7COUetdq65cSNjVe7-96c44=4JE5BXkBwXG-5nyQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-03-22 17:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:33 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Change the macros to use the usual "do { } while (0)" instead, and change a
> > > few more that were (void)0, for consistency.
> >
> > So what about audit_put_watch() and audit_get_watch() which are set to
> > {}?   (And all of include/linux/audit.h that uses the latter...)  Does
> > this only matter if they are the only action called in an if or loop?
> 
> I missed those, thanks for pointing it out. I sent a v2 patch now.

Ok, cool, that looks more consistent.  Can you answer my question about
include/linux/audit.h and exactly what conditions require
"do { } while (0)" over "{ }"?

>          Arnd

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635