Messages in this thread | | | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Minor coding style fix | Date | Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:48:45 +0530 |
| |
Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 08/10/06, Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@gmail.com> wrote: >> Kernel generally follow the style >> >> if (func()) { >> /* failed case */ >> } else { >> /* success */ >> } >> >> > > Please submit patches inline, having to copy them from attachments to > be able to reply is a pain. > >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c >> index 98489d8..55cb77c 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sys.c >> +++ b/kernel/sys.c >> @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_notifier_call_cha >> void srcu_init_notifier_head(struct srcu_notifier_head *nh) >> { >> mutex_init(&nh->mutex); >> - if (init_srcu_struct(&nh->srcu) < 0) >> + if (init_srcu_struct(&nh->srcu)) >> BUG(); >> nh->head = NULL; >> } > > I really liked the old code better. If in the future > init_srcu_struct() is changed to also return >0 for some conditions, > then that would not previously have triggered BUG(), but after your > changes it will. The code, as it were, perfectly expressed what it > wanted to happen - if it returns less than zero it's a BUG(). > I say leave it alone. > >
As per Documentation/CodingStyle
"Functions can return values of many different kinds, and one of the most common is a value indicating whether the function succeeded or failed. Such a value can be represented as an error-code integer (-Exxx = failure, 0 = success) or a "succeeded" boolean (0 = failure, non-zero = success)."
That means if the function need to indicate success it should be made to return 0. I don't see any other value being returned from init_srcu_struct. Also having a consistent style of if() check make code reading easier.
-aneesh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |