From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751734Ab1DTSQr (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:16:47 -0400 Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([65.115.85.69]:6680 "EHLO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750695Ab1DTSQq (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:16:46 -0400 From: Dmitry Torokhov Organization: VMware, Inc. To: Sarah Sharp Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro definitions Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:16:44 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.35.12-88.fc14.x86_64; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Ben Hutchings , Willy Tarreau , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable-review@kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk References: <20110419204119.285492847@clark.kroah.org> <1303302875.3464.96.camel@localhost> <20110420173252.GA5343@xanatos> In-Reply-To: <20110420173252.GA5343@xanatos> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201104201116.45310.dtor@vmware.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > > > > > > > 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