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

[Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@gmail.com>]

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.

Manu