linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Minor coding style fix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0610081742020.26553@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:42:57 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Minor coding style fix

>> Kernel generally follow the style
>> 
>> if (func()) {
>> /* failed case */
>> } else {
>> /* success */
>> }

Here's my: NAK.
(At best it should be if(foo != 0) rather than if(foo), but that's just me.)

> 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.

I agree here.


	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/