On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Theodore Tso 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
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
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:
> >
On 2/4/07, Ahmed S. Darwish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
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
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:58:48PM +0200, Darwish wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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 */
> }
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:58:48PM +0200, Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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 */
}
Thanks for
On 2/4/07, Ahmed S. Darwish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
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
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 =
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
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Theodore Tso 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
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 04:40:42PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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
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:
> >
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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 =
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> > So:
> >
> > if (is_true()) {
> > /* do something */
> > }
> >
> > is alright then? If so, I agree, but please make it real clear in the
> > document ;)
>
> Good catch :). A
> 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
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >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();
>
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0200 Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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 */
>
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0200 Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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
So:
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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) {
/*
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,
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
So:
if (is_true()) {
/* do something */
}
is alright then? If so, I agree, but please make it real clear in the
document ;)
Good catch :). A small grep of
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:16PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Hi all,
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 =
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 =
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 04:40:42PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
