Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759225Ab1D0Q07 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:26:59 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:48928 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757925Ab1D0Q05 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:26:57 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=ZtuXOl23UuD1yoJUTgnZ6i6Z5VPlPhPMWCeUNtN8OGA= c=1 sm=0 a=i38SgkEfDKkA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=obuGd26_AAAA:8 a=KS5SXdNKKjFin6_52PkA:9 a=Cxd6WFkownpmQIO-fewA:7 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=autfX1nt8JkA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro. From: Steven Rostedt To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , gmack@innerfire.net, Christoph Hellwig , Thiago Farina , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20110427005243.GI9486@thunk.org> <20110427064719.GB597@infradead.org> <20110427145209.GJ9486@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:26:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1303921616.18763.64.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3437 Lines: 99 On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 19:04 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:47:40AM -0400, gmack@innerfire.net wrote: > >> Knowing about it and not screwing it up are two different things. I was > >> working on a project a few years ago and we made this exact change thanks > >> to the backwards logic of strcmp constantly screwing people up and the bug > >> count went down considerably. > > > > If someone could even vaguely possibly screw up strcmp(), I don't want > > them submitting patches to my subsystem. I'm generally worried about > > far more subtle bugs (deadlocks, locking screwups), and as Christoph > > said, if you can't notice a strcmp bug, there's something > > ***seriousl**** wrong with your code review process, test suite, > > testing discpline, or all of the above. > > This can be good excuse in math where proof of existence is enough. > For some reason, the one making excuses always fails to say > what exactly is wrong with all of the above. Note, Ted only NAK'd it for his own code. Christoph seemed to do the same for his. I'm fine with it in my code as when I see: if (le32_to_cpu(de->inode) != inode->i_ino || !le32_to_cpu(de1->inode) || strcmp (".", de->name) || strcmp ("..", de1->name)) { ext3_warning (inode->i_sb, "empty_dir", "bad directory (dir #%lu) - no `.' or `..'", inode->i_ino); brelse (bh); return 1; } (from fs/ext3/namei.c) it does not stand out to me that this if statement will return true if de->name does not equal "." or de1->name does not equal "..". If this looked like: if (le32_to_cpu(de->inode) != inode->i_ino || !le32_to_cpu(de1->inode) || !streq (".", de->name) || !streq ("..", de1->name)) { ext3_warning (inode->i_sb, "empty_dir", "bad directory (dir #%lu) - no `.' or `..'", inode->i_ino); brelse (bh); return 1; } IMO looks much easier to understand. Although I also think this is easier to understand too: if (le32_to_cpu(de->inode) != inode->i_ino || !le32_to_cpu(de1->inode) || strcmp (".", de->name) != 0 || strcmp ("..", de1->name) != 0) { ext3_warning (inode->i_sb, "empty_dir", "bad directory (dir #%lu) - no `.' or `..'", inode->i_ino); brelse (bh); return 1; } But again, I'm not the maintainer that needs to make sure this is correct. I still feel this is personal preference decided by the maintainer of said code. > But instead of agreeing > that, yes, streq() as "compare strings by value, relative order is not > important, > interesting or relevant" should have existed from the very beginning, > let's add it into kernel at least, I'm all for adding a streq() and may even use it. Simply because it makes reading the code easier to understand, and not necessarily less buggy (although I think it might help). Note, I was having a similar discussion with a fellow kernel developer on IRC a few years ago about using: !strcmp() vs strcmp() == 0 and in that discussion, the example the other developer had done with !strcmp() had a bug in it. Which did convince him to switch to strcmp() == 0 ;) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/