Re: [PATCH 2/2] [condingstyle] Add chapter on tests

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>]

On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
>diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
>index f518395..3635b38 100644
>--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
>+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
>@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
> 	int result = 0;
> 	char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE);
> 
>-	if (buffer == NULL)
>+	if (!buffer)
> 		return -ENOMEM;

Please don't do this. With ==NULL/!=NULL, it is clear what
<randomvariable> could be (integer or pointer) without needing
to look it up. It also reads quite strange: "if not buffer".
For bools ('adjectives' / 'is a'), it works, not so much for ptrs.
Hence:

>+If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
>+to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
>+omit all that and keep it short.

>+	ptr = s->next;
>+	if (!ptr)
>+		return;

Not agreed.

>+
>+	v = (read_byte(register));
>+	if (v & mask)
>+		return;

well, yes.

>+	if (is_prime(number))

Yes.


And I'd also like to mention one rather special case where I'd rather
like to see ==0 than ! for clarity (!strcmp looks like !streq, so
one needs to look twice to get it):

	if (!strcmp(hay, needle))


At least don't force the '!' doctrine.


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