linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/12] workqueue: simplify is_chained

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: <20120930073225.GB10383@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:32:25 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] workqueue: simplify is_chained_work()

Hello,

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:52:02PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Main reason: I think the readability of your is the same as mine,
> and your add two lines.
> 
> Tiny reason: my code uses only one return. (I don't always keep one return,
> but I try to keep it if it is still clean)
> 
> Is there any other reason to change it?

I don't like that the same condition is tested twice but technical
advantages on issues like this are usually too small to be used as the
sole basis to choose one over another and it usually comes down to
preferences.  For little things without clear technical advantage,
following maintainer's taste tends to lead to higher consistency.  So,
yeah, I'd appreciate if you change it on the next posting or will
probably just change it while applying it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/