Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful parser(2)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@...>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...>, <akpm@...>, <torvalds@...>, <linux-security-module@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Al Viro <viro@...>
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 1:05 pm

...
...

Two things caught my eye.

...

Why is the '>' necessary?  Could it happen that you had incremented past the
point of equality?

If that could not happen, then in my oppinion '>=' is very misleading when '=='
is really what is needed.

...

I wonder why it is valid to uncritically use the already incremented label_len
here, without checking its value (like is done above).

It seems strangely asymmetrical. I'm not saying it's wrong, because there may
be a subtle reason as to why it's not, but if that's the case then I think that
subtle reason should be documented with a comment.

...

Same applies here.


-- 

 / jakob

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful parser, Ahmed S. Darwish, (Sat Nov 3, 12:43 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful p..., Jakob Oestergaard, (Sat Nov 10, 1:05 pm)