[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ce0a63fc-1985-4e25-a08b-c0045ae095f4@moroto.mountain>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:31:30 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Tung Quang Nguyen <tung.q.nguyen@...tech.com.au>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>, Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>,
Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net" <tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] tipc: remove redundant assignment to ret, simplify
code
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:04:10AM +0000, Tung Quang Nguyen wrote:
> >
> I suggest that err variable should be completely removed. Could you
> please also do the same thing for this code ?
> "
> ...
> err = skb_handler(skb, cb, tsk);
> if (err) {
If we write the code as:
if (some_function(parameters)) {
then at first that looks like a boolean. People probably think the
function returns true/false. But if we leave it as-is:
err = some_function(parameters);
if (err) {
Then that looks like error handling.
So it's better and more readable to leave it as-is.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists