mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com
Subject: Re: A CodingStyle suggestion
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:21:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aday7neydq9.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070204000532.GA20721@Ahmed> (Ahmed S. Darwish's message of "Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:05:32 +0200")

 > Good catch :). A small grep of `access_ok' reveals that it's always used in the 
 > form of:
 > if (!access_ok()) { .. }
 > 
 > I can conclude that verbal/imperative methods like `kmalloc, add_work' be 
 > checked as:
 > ret = do_work();
 > if (ret) { ... }
 > and predicate methods like `acess_ok, pci_dev_present' be checked like:
 > if (!access_ok) { ... }
 > if (pci_dev_present) { ...}
 > 
 > Any comments ?

I don't think that's really the distinction that matters.  I think
really the issue is that assignment within an if is hard to read, so

	ret = foo(a, b);
        if (ret) { ... }

is clearly preferred to

	if ((ret = foo(a,b))) { ... }

However, in my opinion something like

	if (foo(a,b)) { ... }

if perfectly fine if the return value of foo is not needed anywhere
else.  In other words, there's no sense introducing a temporary
variable to hold the return value if you're never going to do anything
with it other than check it on the next line.

 - R.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-04  0:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-03 21:58 Ahmed S. Darwish
2007-02-03 21:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-02-04 12:48   ` Theodore Tso
2007-02-04 12:55     ` Manu Abraham
2007-02-04 12:57     ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-02-03 22:56 ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-04  0:05   ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2007-02-04  0:21     ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2007-02-04  0:40       ` Randy Dunlap
2007-02-04  6:35         ` Willy Tarreau
2007-02-04  0:22     ` Tim Schmielau
2007-02-04  0:39     ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-04 12:10 ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2007-02-04 12:36 ` Manu Abraham

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aday7neydq9.fsf@cisco.com \
    --to=rdreier@cisco.com \
    --cc=darwish.07@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --cc=ricknu-0@student.ltu.se \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®