linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion

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: <20150210145341.GJ3220@htj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:53:41 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion_timeout

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> -	if (!rc) {
> +	if (irq_timeout == 0) {

Why == 0 tho?  This always bothers me.  To match this style, we'd use
!= 0 to test the other direction.  In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
better than "if (ret)"?  We're negating the two tests needlessly.

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/