Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:28:43 +0200
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 3/13/23 16:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:31:42PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:  
> >> On 3/6/23 13:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> >>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:54:22AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:  
> >>>> On 3/2/23 17:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:57:54PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> >>>>>> +		for (i = 0; !ret && i < gts->num_avail_all_scales; i++)  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Much easier to read if you move this...
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>> +			ret = iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale(gts, all_gains[i],
> >>>>>> +					&gts->avail_all_scales_table[i * 2],
> >>>>>> +					&gts->avail_all_scales_table[i * 2 + 1]);  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...here as
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 		if (ret)
> >>>>> 			break;  
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the !ret in loop condition is obvious. Adding break and brackets
> >>>> would not improve this.  
> >>>
> >>> It moves it to the regular pattern. Yours is not so distributed in the kernel.  
> >>
> >> I believe we can find examples of both patterns in kernel. I don't think the
> >> "many people use different pattern" is a great reason to add break +
> >> brackets which (in my eyes) give no additional value to code I am planning
> >> to keep reading also in the future...  
> > 
> > The problem is that your pattern is not so standard (distributed) and hence
> > less maintainable.  
> 
> I am sorry but I can't really agree with you on this one. For me adding 
> the break and brackets would just complicate the flow and thus decrease 
> the maintainability.

I'm with the if (ret) break;
school of thought on this one.  Never like for loops with complex conditions,
I guess because I've trained my eyes to ignore them ;)