On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 01:42:19PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:05 -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 > > > index c9d5dcc..4ec895a 100644 > > > --- 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. > > > > -hpa > > > > Yes, this is an intentional optimization. Is there any scenario where things may > break with the compiler? No. I'm going to remove the warning from the static checker like I said earlier. It should only complain for && vs & typos, || vs | is harmless. regards, dan carpenter -- 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