On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:36:43 +0200 (CEST) Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, walter harms wrote: > > > > > > > Am 10.06.2015 17:20, schrieb Firo Yang: > > > Warning like this: > > > > > > drivers/md/md.c: In function ‘update_array_info’: > > > drivers/md/md.c:6394:26: warning: logical not is only applied > > > to the left hand side of comparison [-Wlogical-not-parentheses] > > > !mddev->persistent != info->not_persistent|| > > > > > > I fix it by enclosing !mddev->persistent with parentheses > > > > > > By the way, I also fixed a line over 80 characters warning outputed > > > by ./scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Firo Yang <firogm@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/md/md.c | 5 +++-- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > > > index dd85be9..b420d82 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > > > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > > > @@ -6391,9 +6391,10 @@ static int update_array_info(struct mddev *mddev, mdu_array_info_t *info) > > > mddev->ctime != info->ctime || > > > mddev->level != info->level || > > > /* mddev->layout != info->layout || */ > > > - !mddev->persistent != info->not_persistent|| > > > + (!mddev->persistent) != info->not_persistent || > > > > > > this looks odd, > > would it be possible the check for == instead (and drop the !) ? > > and it someone care for readability: It would be helpful to > > make some more ifs here. > > The original issue looks like a false positive. If all of the other cases > have no parentheses on the left and use !=, isn't it better to leave the > code as is? > Leaving the code as it is would leave at least one compiler generating warnings. I don't like warnings. So if the compiler can be "fixed" that would be good. But it seems unlikely. May we could do: > > > + mddev->persistent != !info->not_persistent || That would keep the two "not"s together, avoid the need for parentheses, and probably avoid the compiler warning. (I think I had it the way it is because it almost reads " not ...peristent != ... not_persistent" but that isn't a strong reason) Firo: Can you confirm that this version doesn't upset the compiler? If if doesn't I'd definitely prefer this one. (and definitely leave out the comment change - just change the code) Thanks, NeilBrown > julia > > > > > re, > > wh > > > > > mddev->chunk_sectors != info->chunk_size >> 9 || > > > - /* ignore bottom 8 bits of state, and allow SB_BITMAP_PRESENT to change */ > > > + /* ignore bottom 8 bits of state, and allow SB_BITMAP_PRESENT > > > + to change */ > > > ((state^info->state) & 0xfffffe00) > > > ) > > > return -EINVAL; > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
