lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] stacked ifs (was Re: [PATCH 02/12] handle multiple network paths to AoE device)

On Jul 16 2007 17:01, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> > > ugh. Do this:
>> > >
>> > > do {
>> > > if (t == d->htgt)
>> > > continue;
>> > > if (!(*t)->ifp->nd)
>> > > continue;
>> > > if ((*t)->nout >= (*t)->maxout)
>> > > continue;
>> > >
>> > > <stuff>
>> > > } while (++t ...)
>> >
>> > Do you think the "stacked ifs" in the first version above could be
>> > accepted as a convenient extension to the K&R-based conventions in
>> > Documentation/CodingStyle?
>>
>> Maybe. I don't recall seeing any kernel code which uses that convention:
>> everyone uses &&. So personally I'd prefer to see kernel code stick to the
>> one convention, given that there is not, afacit, any significant advantage
>> to the alternative one.
>
>I agree, let's stick with the convention we already have and use
>instead.

Yup. Either the "do this" (see above) or the "&&" variant, though, the latter
can become quite nested or long.

[ In fact, if you have
void function(struct something *arg)
{
if (arg != NULL) {
lots_of_code;
}
}
it is perhaps better to write as
{
if (arg == NULL)
return;
lots_of_code;
}
since that reduces the indent by at least one. ]


Jan
--
-
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: 2007-07-18 17:27    [W:0.137 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site