Re: [PATCH 19/22] bbu: Remove logical negation in barebox_update_handler_exists()

[Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:42 PM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:09 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:26:00PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > > Returning !bbu_find_handler() from barebox_update_handler_exists()
> > > > would return the opposite result from what the name of that funciton
> > > > implies. Drop the "!" to make it behave as expected.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  common/bbu.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/common/bbu.c b/common/bbu.c
> > > > index 11e44f4a7..69ccac68a 100644
> > > > --- a/common/bbu.c
> > > > +++ b/common/bbu.c
> > > > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ bool barebox_update_handler_exists(struct bbu_data *data)
> > > >       if (!data->handler_name)
> > > >               return false;
> > > >
> > > > -     return !bbu_find_handler(data->handler_name);
> > > > +     return bbu_find_handler(data->handler_name);
> > >
> > > As bbu_find_handler() returns a pointer maybe better '!!' or
> > > bbu_find_handler() != NULL?
> > >
> >
> > That shouldn't be necessary since barebox_update_handler_exists()
> > returns bool(real type name is _Bool) which explicitly specifies that
> > a cast of any scalar value to it would be normalized to 1 or 0 (as per
> > C99 standard from whence it came). Otherwise you'd be able to end up
> > in a situation where bool1 && bool2 && (bool1 != bool2) evaluates to
> > true.
> >
> > To give you more concrete example, here's what the last portion of
> > that function compiles to on AArch64:
> >
> >     2924: 97ffff5e     bl 269c <bbu_find_handler>
> >     2928: f100001f   cmp x0, #0x0
> >     292c: 1a9f07e0  cset w0, ne  // ne = any
> >     2930: f9400bf3   ldr x19, [sp, #16]
> >     2934: a8c27bfd  ldp x29, x30, [sp], #32
> >     2938: d65f03c0  ret
> >     293c: 52800020 mov w0, #0x1                    // #1
> >     2940: 17fffffc      b 2930 <barebox_update_handler_exists+0x30>
> >     2944: 52800000 mov w0, #0x0                    // #0
> >     2948: 17fffffa      b 2930 <barebox_update_handler_exists+0x30>
> >
> > and on AArch32 (Thumb):
> >
> >     18e0: f7ff ff48 bl 1774 <bbu_find_handler>
> >     18e4: 3000     adds r0, #0
> >     18e6: bf18      it ne
> >     18e8: 2001     movne r0, #1
> >     18ea: bd10     pop {r4, pc}
> >     18ec: 2001     movs r0, #1
> >     18ee: e7fc      b.n 18ea <barebox_update_handler_exists+0x1a>
> >
> > as you can see both cases already have code to explicitly convert the
> > result of the function to 0/1.
> >
> > I am more than happy to add ether !! or != NULL if you still think
> > that'd be better, it just I don't think it will have any practical
> > effect.
>
> For sure it doesn't have a practical effect, it's merely a sign to show
> "I know I'm casting a pointer to bool". Probably I'm just used to add
> an explicit cast there and it's just a matter of taste.
>

Since I have two people in favor of adding a != NULL there, I'll just
add it in v2 since I don't have a very strong opinion on the subject.

Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox