[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bff9626d-095c-4bed-ae8b-2be50610aee7@kili.mountain>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:06:28 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To: Sumitra Sharma <sumitraartsy@...il.com>
Cc: Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: qlge: Remove macro FILL_SEG
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 08:06:27AM -0700, Sumitra Sharma wrote:
> + err = err || qlge_fill_seg_(fmsg, &dump->core_regs_seg_hdr, dump->mpi_core_regs);
I have not seen anyone do this before. I sometimes see people do:
err |= frob1();
err |= frob2();
err |= frob3();
I don't like this very much, but it basically works-ish... I don't like
that it ORs all the errors together and that it continues after it has
errors.
Another idea would be to do:
err = err ?: frob1();
err = err ?: frob2();
err = err ?: frob3();
BPF and networking have a couple place which do it this way so maybe
it's going to become trendy.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists