lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v4 15/69] new step_into() flag: WALK_NOFOLLOW
I mentioned this last time (perhaps for a different sequence):

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> if (likely(!d_is_symlink(path->dentry)) ||
> - !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW)) {
> + !(flags & WALK_FOLLOW || nd->flags & LOOKUP_FOLLOW) ||
> + flags & WALK_NOFOLLOW) {

Yes, I know that bitwise operations have higher precedence than the
logical ones. And I know & (and &&) have higher precedence than | (and
||).

But I have to _think_ about it every time I see code like this.

I'd really prefer to see

if ((a & BIT) || (b & ANOTHER_BIT))

over the "equivalent" and shorter

if (a & BIT || b & ANOTHER_BIT)

Please make it explicit. It wasn't before either, but it _could_ be.

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-14 01:33    [W:0.264 / U:1.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site