| From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:32:32 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 15/69] new step_into() flag: WALK_NOFOLLOW |
| |
I mentioned this last time (perhaps for a different sequence):
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > if (likely(!d_is_symlink(path->dentry)) || > - !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW)) { > + !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW) || > + flags & WALK_NOFOLLOW) {
Yes, I know that bitwise operations have higher precedence than the logical ones. And I know & (and &&) have higher precedence than | (and ||).
But I have to _think_ about it every time I see code like this.
I'd really prefer to see
if ((a & BIT) || (b & ANOTHER_BIT))
over the "equivalent" and shorter
if (a & BIT || b & ANOTHER_BIT)
Please make it explicit. It wasn't before either, but it _could_ be.
Linus
|