On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:21:18 -0800 Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Good catch :). A small grep of `access_ok' reveals that it's always used in the
> > form of:
> > if (!access_ok()) { .. }
> >
> > I can conclude that verbal/imperative methods like `kmalloc, add_work' be
> > checked as:
> > ret = do_work();
> > if (ret) { ... }
> > and predicate methods like `acess_ok, pci_dev_present' be checked like:
> > if (!access_ok) { ... }
> > if (pci_dev_present) { ...}
> >
> > Any comments ?
>
> I don't think that's really the distinction that matters. I think
> really the issue is that assignment within an if is hard to read, so
>
> ret = foo(a, b);
> if (ret) { ... }
>
> is clearly preferred to
>
> if ((ret = foo(a,b))) { ... }
>
> However, in my opinion something like
>
> if (foo(a,b)) { ... }
>
> if perfectly fine if the return value of foo is not needed anywhere
> else. In other words, there's no sense introducing a temporary
> variable to hold the return value if you're never going to do anything
> with it other than check it on the next line.
I agree with Roland's comments here.
And with Tim's about side effects.
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
