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.
- Ted
-
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/
