Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:55:58 +0400 | From | "Manu Abraham" <> | Subject | Re: A CodingStyle suggestion |
| |
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 - 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/
|  |