lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [alsa-devel] ALSA: pcsp: Use common error handling code in snd_card_pcsp_probe()
From
Date
>> I got the impression that the functions which are called at the updated places
>> by the function “snd_card_pcsp_probe” indicate a successful execution
>> only by zero so far.
>
> You have the impression, great.

This aspect is also a general programming interface issue for some functions.


> And what's the reason to drop the negative check?

* I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”.

* It is also a small source code reduction.


> It's not clearer, not better readable.

It seems that we have got different development opinions this time.


> And, the worst part is that you've done it silently even without
> mentioning in the change log at all. That's really bad.
> Just don't do it.

I found it not relevant enough for the commit message.


> For example, the control API functions may return the positive number
> when the value got changed, 0 for else, and a negative number for the
> error. The functions returning some numbers may return positive
> numbers, of course.

Did I touch any specific function calls which belong to this
programming interface category?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-22 16:39    [W:0.053 / U:7.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site