Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] [PATCH 3/3] V4L: cinergyT2, remove bad usage of ERESTARTSYS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Manu Abraham schrieb:

Marcel Siegert wrote:

Manu Abraham schrieb:

Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

Em Qua, 2007-10-10 Ã s 11:59 -0400, Alan Cox escreveu:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:35:41PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

Em Qua, 2007-10-10 Ã s 00:18 -0400, Michael Krufky escreveu:

Is this illegal as per kernel codingstyle?

Yes, it is. CodingStyle states:

<rant>
No.. "Illegal" means prohibited by law. Its merely wrong 8)
</rant>

LOL


The proper fix is just to replace the offended code by this:

err=foo();
if (error)
    goto error;

Lots of code uses

    if ((err = foo()) < 0)

so I would'y worry too much. The split one however clearer and also
safer.

Yes, this is not a severe CodingStyle violation. Still, the above code
is better than the used one.

Since, on your example, it is clear that the programmer wanted to test
if the value is less than zero.
The code:

    if ( (err=foo()) )

should also indicate an operator mistake of using =, instead of ==.

Probably, source code analyzers like Coverity will complain about the
above.

If not violating CodingStyle, I would rather prefer to code this as:
    if ( !(err=foo() ) or, even better, using:
    if ( (err=foo()) != 0)

clearly indicating that it is tested if the value is not zero.

Even being a quite simple issue, I would prefer if Jiri can fix it.



When you have only some few lines of code you can write

 err = foo()
 if (err) {
  do whatever
 }
doesn't matter ..

But when you have hell a lot of code, checking error's what you
mention is insane.

ie,

if ((err = foo()) expr ) is better.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/4/56

Manu


hi manu,

it's not worth discussing this in a way like
"i know something from the past and that was a different solution".
didn't mean to look at it that way, because i had addressed my concerns at that time as well. 


if you look to other parts in that thread like

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/3/150

you will see that they came also to a kind of different solution,
NOT to use the 1-liner for assignment statements.

it's more like a religious/personal discussion how to
struct/indent/format code.
and, to state my position for clear,



It is. Sometimes i find such things in CodingStyle to be too silly.


if kernel coding style document isnt updated to allow the constructions
of code that caused this discussion, we dont have to discuss but follow
the rules.

anything else on this topic (coding style and it's sense) is to be
discussed on kernel ml.



Marcel, It is on LKML.


i do know manu, but as far as i can see from my fresh 2.6.23,
its not solved or changed in vanilla kernel CodingStyle doc.

so we have to follow actual guidelines _or_ wait until
CodingStyle is accordingly updated.

not more, not less.


regards
marcel

-
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]
  Powered by Linux