[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071222022701.1ddd2ae2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:27:01 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc: Convert handmade 'max' to max().
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:35:55 +0100 (MET) Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se> wrote:
> Convert handmade 'max' to max().
>
> ...
>
> --- a/ipc/msg.c
> +++ b/ipc/msg.c
> @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_msgctl(int msqid, int cmd, struct msqid_ds __user *buf)
> up_read(&msg_ids(ns).rw_mutex);
> if (copy_to_user(buf, &msginfo, sizeof(struct msginfo)))
> return -EFAULT;
> - return (max_id < 0) ? 0 : max_id;
> + return max(max_id, 0);
I don't think I like that much.
I tend to think of max() as being an arithmetic sort of thing: pick the
largest of two scalars.
But the code which you're changing is a _logical_ operation. It says "if
ipc_get_maxid() returned an error, then return zero. Otherwise return
whatever ipc_get_maxid() returned".
Yes, max() will do the right thing here, but I think it's a bit of weird
trick?
I mean, if ipc_get_maxid() were a better function, it would return a -ve
errno when something failed rather than the present dopey hard-coded -1.
In which case the code would read
return IS_ERR_VALUE(max_id) ? 0 : max_id;
in which case, converting it to max() would be even less appropriate. If
you see what I mean...
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists