Re: A CodingStyle suggestion

["Manu Abraham" <abraham.manu@gmail.com>]

On 2/4/07, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:59:51PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0200 Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > >
> > > In CodingStyle Chapter 16 "Function return value and names", why not
> > > adding a comment about the favorable community way of checking the return
> > > value. ie:
> > >
> > > ret = do_method();
> > > if (ret) {
> > >    /* deal with error */
> > > }
> > >
> > > and not other ways like:
> > >
> > > if (do_method()) or if ((ret = do_method()) > value) ...
> > >
> >
> > I like it.  Please cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> on it.
> > Hopefully he will merge it.
> >
>
> I'm going to have to disagree.  Sometimes if the main flow of the code
> is down, it's actually better to do this:
>
>         if ((err = do_foo()) < 0)
>                 return (err);
>         if ((err = do_bar(current, filp)) < 0)
>                 return (err);
>         if ((err = do_quux(filp, buffer)) < 0) {
>                 close(filp);
>                 return (err);
>         }
>
> Than to do something like this:
>
>         err = do_foo();
>         if (err < 0)
>                 return (err);
>         err = do_bar(current, filp);
>         if (err < 0)
>                 return (err);
>         err = do_quux(filp, buffer);
>         if (err < 0) {
>                 close(filp);
>                 return (err);
>         }
>
> The first is more concise, and it draws the reader's eye to what's
> really going on.  The cleanup/return error path is less important, and
> and it's pretty clear what's going on just from glancing at it.


Completely agree, as i said in my earlier post.



manu