Re: [PATCH 32/32] x86/boot/e820: Move index increments outside accessors in e820__update_table()

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On May 15, 2025 5:05:48 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >This kind of code:
> >
> >	change_point[chg_idx++]->entry  = &entries[idx];
> >
> >Can be a bit confusing to human readers, and GCC-15 started
> >warning about these patterns.
> >
> >Move the index increment outside the accessor.
> >
> >Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> >index 10c6e7dc72d7..afb312620c82 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> >@@ -421,9 +421,11 @@ __init int e820__update_table(struct e820_table *table)
> > 	for (idx = 0; idx < table->nr_entries; idx++)	{
> > 		if (entries[idx].size != 0) {
> > 			change_point[chg_idx]->addr	= entries[idx].addr;
> >-			change_point[chg_idx++]->entry	= &entries[idx];
> >+			change_point[chg_idx]->entry	= &entries[idx];
> >+			chg_idx++;
> > 			change_point[chg_idx]->addr	= entries[idx].addr + entries[idx].size;
> >-			change_point[chg_idx++]->entry	= &entries[idx];
> >+			change_point[chg_idx]->entry	= &entries[idx];
> >+			chg_idx++;
> > 		}
> > 	}
> > 	chg_nr = chg_idx;
> 
> Really? That seems easier to miss to me.

Maybe writing it in two groups:

			change_point[chg_idx]->addr	= entries[idx].addr;
			change_point[chg_idx]->entry	= &entries[idx];
			chg_idx++;

			change_point[chg_idx]->addr	= entries[idx].addr + entries[idx].size;
			change_point[chg_idx]->entry	= &entries[idx];
			chg_idx++;

makes it a bit easier to read? The chg_idx++ are pretty prominent in 
that form, while it's easier to miss when it's embedded.

Thanks,

	Ingo