Re: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro definitions

[Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:32:52 AM Sarah Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 07:39 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections,
> > > > > please let us know.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in
> > > > > parenthesis to avoid unpleasant surprises.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing
> > > > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'?
> > > 
> > > In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the
> > > current code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix
> > > in the kernel could cause a serious regression when backported to
> > > -stable. For instance,
> > 
> > > if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) :
> > [...]
> > 
> > I agree, but would like to know whether there is an immediate effect.
> 
> No immediate breakage, AFAIK.  Dmitry found the issue by inspection.

Right, mainline (and next) appear to be safe at the moment.

Thanks,
Dmitry