Re: [PATCH 02/16] ehca: module infrastructure

[Jörn Engel]

On Thu, 27 April 2006 12:48:05 +0200, Heiko J Schick wrote:
>
> +	if (ehca_module->cache_pd == NULL) {

Hmm.

> +	ret = kmem_cache_destroy(ehca_module->cache_pd);
> +	if (ret != 0)

The " != 0" is completely superfluous.  Above NULL check is a matter
of taste, this one demonstates lack of boolean algebra understanding.

> +	rblock = kzalloc(H_CB_ALIGNMENT, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!rblock) {

Hmm.  And your taste seems to change. :)

> +	if (ehca_hw_level == 0) {

And since we're on the subject.  Ignoring the recent discussion
involving akpm, viro and others, the kernel historically used int both
for integer and boolean, plus return values as a special kind of
"boolean with error indication attached".

For boolean, it is nicer to do things like "if (!error)", for
integers, a comparison as above is nicer.  Return codes fall into the
boolean category.  Pointers after kmalloc() and similar are viewed as
rich boolean by some people, but not by all.

Jörn

-- 
Geld macht nicht glücklich.
Glück macht nicht satt.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/