On 2/4/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:59:51PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0200 Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > > > In CodingStyle Chapter 16 "Function return value and names", why not > > adding a comment about the favorable community way of checking the return > > value. ie: > > > > ret = do_method(); > > if (ret) { > > /* deal with error */ > > } > > > > and not other ways like: > > > > if (do_method()) or if ((ret = do_method()) > value) ... > > > > I like it. Please cc: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on it. > Hopefully he will merge it. >I'm going to have to disagree. Sometimes if the main flow of the code is down, it's actually better to do this: if ((err = do_foo()) < 0) return (err); if ((err = do_bar(current, filp)) < 0) return (err); if ((err = do_quux(filp, buffer)) < 0) { close(filp); return (err); } Than to do something like this: err = do_foo(); if (err < 0) return (err); err = do_bar(current, filp); if (err < 0) return (err); err = do_quux(filp, buffer); if (err < 0) { close(filp); return (err); } The first is more concise, and it draws the reader's eye to what's really going on. The cleanup/return error path is less important, and and it's pretty clear what's going on just from glancing at it.
Completely agree, as i said in my earlier post. manu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
