Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Jan 2023 13:35:29 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v2 03/12] net: mdio: mdiobus_register: update validation test |
| |
Hi Russell,
Am 2023-01-03 23:19, schrieb Russell King (Oracle): > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 11:21:08AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote: >> Am 2023-01-03 11:13, schrieb Russell King (Oracle): >> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:07:19AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote: >> > > + if (!bus || !bus->name) >> > > + return -EINVAL; >> > > + >> > > + /* An access method always needs both read and write operations */ >> > > + if ((bus->read && !bus->write) || >> > > + (!bus->read && bus->write) || >> > > + (bus->read_c45 && !bus->write_c45) || >> > > + (!bus->read_c45 && bus->write_c45)) >> > >> > I wonder whether the following would be even more readable: >> > >> > if (!bus->read != !bus->write || !bus->read_c45 != !bus->write_c45) >> >> That's what Andrew had originally. But there was a comment from Sergey >> [1] >> which I agree with. I had a hard time wrapping my head around that, so >> I >> just listed all the possible bad cases. > > The only reason I suggested it was because when looked at your code, > it also took several reads to work out what it was trying to do! > > Would using !!bus->read != !!bus->write would help or make it worse, > !!ptr being the more normal way to convert something to a boolean?
IMHO that makes it even harder. But I doubt we will find an expression that will work for everyone. I'll go with your suggestion/Andrew's first version in the next iteration.
-michael
| |