2013/10/19 David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > From: Geyslan Gregório Bem <geyslan@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:42:35 -0300 > >> 2013/10/19 David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> From: "Geyslan G. Bem" <geyslan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:09:31 -0300 >>> >>>> This patch moves the '!err' condition into the above else scope, >>>> what is more obvious and has the secondary goal of avoid false-positives >>>> in statical analyze tools. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Geyslan G. Bem <geyslan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I do not think patches should be applied to satisfy tools if the >>> code is semantically correct. >> >> Yes, Miller, I agree. But as I mentioned: >> ".. and has as the 'secondary' goal of avoid false-positives in >> statical analyze tools." >> >> The 'primary' goal is to not repeat a condition test: >> "This patch moves the '!err' condition into the above else scope, what >> is more obvious ..." > > I still do not feel that this change is a net-positive. Sorry. Miller, I can understand you. You don't want to break your git history (blame). But when a code is clearly more readable/understandable you must assume that it has a huge net-positive. The patch improves the code in three ways: - Only one if/else; - Not blame on static analysis tools. - And avoid more discussion about that in the future (nobody will send patches like this to disturb you about that part of code). The decision is yours. Thanks again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
