Re: [PATCH] Minor coding style fix

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 08/10/06, Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Kernel generally follow the style
> >
> > if (func()) {
> > /* failed case */
> > } else {
> > /* success */
> > }
>
> Please submit patches inline, having to copy them from attachments to
> be able to reply is a pain.
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> > index 98489d8..55cb77c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sys.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> > @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_notifier_call_cha
> >  void srcu_init_notifier_head(struct srcu_notifier_head *nh)
> >  {
> >      mutex_init(&nh->mutex);
> > -    if (init_srcu_struct(&nh->srcu) < 0)
> > +    if (init_srcu_struct(&nh->srcu))
> >          BUG();
> >      nh->head = NULL;
> >  }
>
> I really liked the old code better. If in the future
> init_srcu_struct() is changed to also return >0 for some conditions,
> then that would not previously have triggered BUG(), but after your
> changes it will. The code, as it were, perfectly expressed what it
> wanted to happen - if it returns less than zero it's a BUG().
> I say leave it alone.


As per Documentation/CodingStyle 

"Functions can return values of many different kinds, and one of the
most common is a value indicating whether the function succeeded or
failed.  Such a value can be represented as an error-code integer
(-Exxx = failure, 0 = success) or a "succeeded" boolean (0 = failure,
non-zero = success)."

That means if the function need to indicate success it should be made to return 0. 
I don't see any other value being returned from init_srcu_struct. Also having a consistent
style of if() check make code reading easier.

-aneesh 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/