lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: A CodingStyle suggestion
On 2/4/07, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> 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 <akpm@osdl.org> 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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-04 13:59    [W:0.083 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site