Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ad7150: use ternary operating to ensure 0/1 value

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:40:34 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:15:16AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:50:59 -0300
> > Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > Remove idiom and use ternary operator for consistently trigger 0/1 value
> > > on variable declaration.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@xxxxxxxxx>  
> > Hi Melissa,
> > 
> > In general I would consider this unnecessary churn as, whilst
> > it's no longer a favoured idiom, it is extremely common in the
> > kernel.  
> 
> It's still my favourite...  Why wouldn't people like it?  It feels like
> last week I just saw someone send a bunch of:
> 
> -	foo = (bar == baz) ? 1 : 0;
> +	foo = (bar == baz);
> 
> patches and I thought it was an improvement at the time...

That one is nice enough, it's the !! that Linus came out fairly
strongly against though not sure I can find the particular email. 
That one is a fairly kernel specific idiom that I'll be honest I've
rarely seen elsewhere ;)  I remember wincing at the thread
on this as it was an idiom I personally rather liked.

In cases where it doesn't matter because foo doesn't need to 1 or
0 then what you have is nice and clean.

I can't say it's one I care that much about, but I am happy if code
that happens to be under cleanup anyway has this little bit made
the 'preferred style'.  There is something to said for consistency.

Jonathan


> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>