lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: PATCH, RFC: 2.6 Documentation/Codingstyle
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 06:15:10AM +0800, Michael Frank wrote:
> +int fun(int )
> +{
> + int result = 0;
> + char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE);
> +
> + if (buffer == 0) {
> + result = -1;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (condition1) {
> + while (loop1) {
> + ...
> + }
> + result = 1;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + if (condition2) {
> + while (loop2) {
> + ...
> + }
> + result = 2;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +out:
> + if (buffer)
> + kfree(buffer);
> + return result;
> +}

This is a bit of a nitpick, but if you're going to give a code example in a
file titled "Coding style" I'd recommend two changes:

1 - kfree already checks for null, so checking for null before calling
kfree is pointless.

2 - I personally think testing pointers against an integer is bad style, so
I'd prefer to see the original test changed to "if (!buffer)" or
less-preferably "if (buffer == NULL)".
> +Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block.
> +
> +#define macrofun(a,b,c) \
> +do { \
> + if (a == 5) \
> + do_this(b,c); \
> + \
> +} while (0)

Enclosing macros in a do-while block is sound advice, but the above is an
example of something that should be an inline function.

-Kevin

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kevin O'Connor "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for |
| kevin@koconnor.net 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site