On Thu, 27 April 2006 12:48:05 +0200, Heiko J Schick wrote:
>
> + if (ehca_module->cache_pd == NULL) {
Hmm.
> + ret = kmem_cache_destroy(ehca_module->cache_pd);
> + if (ret != 0)
The " != 0" is completely superfluous. Above NULL check is a matter
of taste, this one demonstates lack of boolean algebra understanding.
> + rblock = kzalloc(H_CB_ALIGNMENT, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!rblock) {
Hmm. And your taste seems to change. :)
> + if (ehca_hw_level == 0) {
And since we're on the subject. Ignoring the recent discussion
involving akpm, viro and others, the kernel historically used int both
for integer and boolean, plus return values as a special kind of
"boolean with error indication attached".
For boolean, it is nicer to do things like "if (!error)", for
integers, a comparison as above is nicer. Return codes fall into the
boolean category. Pointers after kmalloc() and similar are viewed as
rich boolean by some people, but not by all.
Jörn
--
Geld macht nicht glücklich.
Glück macht nicht satt.
-
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]
