Re: A CodingStyle suggestion

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:21:18 -0800 Roland Dreier wrote:

>  > Good catch :). A small grep of `access_ok' reveals that it's always used in the 
>  > form of:
>  > if (!access_ok()) { .. }
>  > 
>  > I can conclude that verbal/imperative methods like `kmalloc, add_work' be 
>  > checked as:
>  > ret = do_work();
>  > if (ret) { ... }
>  > and predicate methods like `acess_ok, pci_dev_present' be checked like:
>  > if (!access_ok) { ... }
>  > if (pci_dev_present) { ...}
>  > 
>  > Any comments ?
> 
> I don't think that's really the distinction that matters.  I think
> really the issue is that assignment within an if is hard to read, so
> 
> 	ret = foo(a, b);
>         if (ret) { ... }
> 
> is clearly preferred to
> 
> 	if ((ret = foo(a,b))) { ... }
> 
> However, in my opinion something like
> 
> 	if (foo(a,b)) { ... }
> 
> if perfectly fine if the return value of foo is not needed anywhere
> else.  In other words, there's no sense introducing a temporary
> variable to hold the return value if you're never going to do anything
> with it other than check it on the next line.

I agree with Roland's comments here.

And with Tim's about side effects.

---
~Randy
-
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/