Re: [PATCH V3] acpi: apei: clear error status before acknowledging the error

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

 



On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:20:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>        if (rc != -ENOENT && is_hest_type_generic_v2(ghes))
>>  :-)
>>
>> But again, your call to choose :-)
>
> Slow down please.
>
> What do you think is more readable: a compound if-statement or two
> simple ones, the second one with an explanatory comment?

For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on
top of that additional check.
Separate conditionals in independent cases are, of course, better.
Though, here they are dependent (as I read from commit message).
So, _personally_ I would go with compound one, but note first sentence
in this response.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux