> From: Dan Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 18:36 > To: Dexuan Cui > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:09:10AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > > > I'd suggest you do something like > > > > > > if (ret == -EAGIAIN) > > > return 0; > > > else if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > to make it future-proof (e.g. when a new error is returned by > > > hv_ringbuffer_peek). And a comment would also be useful as it is unclear > > > why we silence errors here. > > Hi Vitaly, > > Thanks! > > I think I made a mistake here: > > the "if (ret != 0) return 0;" should be changed > > to "if (ret != 0) return ret;" Usually 0 means success to me, so to me, "ret != 0" reads like "ret is not successful" and seems natural. The kind of usage is not rare in the kernel code: decui@lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' kernel/ include/ ipc/ -r | wc -l 28 decui@lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' drivers/ -r | wc -l 1031 > The double negative really doesn't not make the code more complicated. > I like using a quadruple negative instead. > > if (ret != 0 != 0) > return ret; > dan carpenter Hi Dan, I read this as a humor. :-) I'll take the suggestion and remember to use this in V4 and in future: if (ret) return ret; Thanks! -- Dexuan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
