"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> I would still prefer the "early return for errors" style even in this >> case. This is because I much prefer to have the question "how can things >> go wrong?" answered first, and dealt with, such that as I read >> top-to-bottom I am left with less things I have to consider to >> understand the "happy path". WRT emphasizing the "algos equal each >> other" concern, a simple comment like > > void_hashcmp is a function that reports how two elements are ordered. > There is no error handling. > > There are in fact two cases that need to be handled with oid_array being > able to contain more then one kind of hash at a time. > > The two entries are ordered by oidcmp. > The two entries are ordered by hash algorithm. > > The order that is maintained is first everything is ordered by hash > algorithm, then for entries of identical hash algorithm they are ordered > by oidcmp. > > So I don't think the concept of early return for errors can ever apply > to any version of void_hashcmp. Ah, yes. It appears that I simply read the code wrong. Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with your analysis and preferred style. Sorry for the noise.
