lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: A CodingStyle suggestion
From
Date
 > 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.
-
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: 2007-02-04 01:25    [W:0.070 / U:1.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site