On Wed, 2025-11-26 at 09:36 +0100, Nam Cao wrote: > On Tue, 2025-11-25 at 14:57 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:06:02 +0000 > > Nam Cao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > @@ -644,13 +640,11 @@ static ssize_t enabled_monitors_write(struct file > > > *filp, const char __user *user > > > else > > > retval = rv_disable_monitor(mon); > > > > > > - if (!retval) > > > - retval = count; > > > - > > > - break; > > > + if (retval) > > > + return retval; > > > + return count; > > > > No biggy, but I wonder if this would look better as: > > > > return retval ? : count; > > Unless you really prefer it this way, I would rather not. The first time > I saw this syntax, it confused the hell out of me. Took me some time > scratching my head until I figured out that it is a GNU extension. > > I prefer to stay with the C standard unless there is major benefit not > to.
To be fair, I find it a bit obscure as well, although it's frequently used within the kernel. Let's not change it then. Thanks, Gabriele
