On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 10:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:05:53AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 06/29/16 07:42, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > > and | behave basically the same here but || is intended. It causes a > > > static checker warning to mix up bitwise and logical operations. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c b/arch/x86/crypto/sha256-mb/sha256_mb.c [] > > > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static struct sha256_hash_ctx *sha256_ctx_mgr_submit(struct sha256_ctx_mgr *mgr, > > > * Or if the user's buffer contains less than a whole block, > > > * append as much as possible to the extra block. > > > */ > > > - if ((ctx->partial_block_buffer_length) | (len < SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE)) { > > > + if ((ctx->partial_block_buffer_length) || (len < SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE)) { > > > /* Compute how many bytes to copy from user buffer into > > > * extra block > > > */ > > > > > As far as I know the | was an intentional optimization, so you may way > > to look at the generated code. > I know how the rules work. I just thought it looked more like a typo > than an optimization. It's normally a typo. It's hard to tell the > intent. The compiler could potentially emit the same code when optimizing but at least gcc 5.3 doesn't. It's probably useful to add a comment for the specific intent here rather than change a potentially useful static checker. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html