On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on >> top of that additional check. > > That's because the comment belongs to the v2 part of the check. > >> Separate conditionals in independent cases are, of course, better. > > Yes, and separate are easier to read if you read them like this: > > + if (rc == -ENOENT) > + return rc; > > <--- Ok, we got the missing entry out of the way, now, here, we have a > valid entry. Now we can concentrate on processing it further. > > ... other check and ack and ... > > And this becomes a lot more natural when you're staring at a big function > which does a lot of things and you concentrate only on the main path. > > Oh, and this is how those checks get translated to asm as there you > don't really have compound if-statements. So if you switch your mind to > reading such checks separately, you're practically ready to read their > asm translation too... > > Anyway, this is how I see it. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > -- -- 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
