linux-kernel - Re: A CodingStyle suggestion

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: <20070204000532.GA20721@Ahmed>
Date:	Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:05:32 +0200
From:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: A CodingStyle suggestion

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) {
> >   /* deal with error */
> >}
> >
> >and not other ways like:
> >
> >if (do_method()) or 
> 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 `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, pci_dev_present' be checked like:
if (!access_ok) { ... }
if (pci_dev_present) { ...}

Any comments ?

-- 
Ahmed S. Darwish
http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
-
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/