From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Philipp Hortmann' <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com>,
Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>,
"Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
Cc: "linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:05:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <06893216a5a04d7e84dfe3e132d333f6@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d50c16c1-0bc2-fdc4-16ab-0c27df824ffb@gmail.com>
...
> Seems to work. But the rules which operation is done first && or == are
> not too easy.
They are the way around you want them to be.
== generates a truth value.
&& and || compare truth values,
The only 'wrong' operator priorities are & and |.
The short-circuiting && and || weren't in the very early
versions of C - the bitwise & and | were used.
When K&R added && and || they left the priorities of & an | alone.
I they they've later said they should have bitten the bullet
and changed the priorities and all the existing C code
> I would prefer to have:
>
> if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == free_recv_queue))
>
> So it is very easy to read what is evaluated first.
That just starts adding too many () and makes more complex
conditionals hard to read.
David
>
> But this is just my opinion and does not have to be right.
>
> Thanks for your patch.
>
> Bye Philipp
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-23 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-23 3:15 [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one Chang Yu
2022-06-23 4:58 ` Philipp Hortmann
2022-06-23 12:05 ` David Laight [this message]
2022-06-24 3:30 ` Chang Yu
2022-06-24 5:26 ` Philipp Hortmann
2022-06-23 5:14 ` [PATCH v2] " Chang Yu
2022-06-23 5:53 ` Philipp Hortmann
2022-06-23 9:45 ` Greg KH
2022-06-24 3:34 ` Chang Yu
2022-06-24 5:39 ` Dan Carpenter
2022-06-24 5:52 ` Chang Yu
2022-06-24 5:47 ` Philipp Hortmann
2022-06-24 5:59 ` Chang Yu
2022-06-24 6:27 ` [PATCH v3] staging: r8188eu: core/rtw_recv.c: clean up nested if statements Chang Yu
2022-06-24 6:42 ` Greg KH
2022-06-24 14:45 ` [PATCH v4] " Chang Yu
2022-06-24 18:01 ` Philipp Hortmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=06893216a5a04d7e84dfe3e132d333f6@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=marcus.yu.56@gmail.com \
--cc=philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox