On 8/15/20 5:27 PM, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: >> [...] >>>> + if (val < (2 ^ 16) - 2) >>> >>> Did you intend to write 2 to the power of 16? Because 2^16 is not that. >>> 2 to the power 16 may be written as '(1 << 16)' or 'BIT(16)' >>> (you may need to include linux/bits.h for the latter) >>> >>> But something like this is my suggestion: >>> >>> if (val < 0 || 0xFFFF < val) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >> >> I would suggest to use clamp_val; we don't expect users to know device >> specific limits. Also, FTR, I won't accept any Yoda programming. >> >> Guenter >> [...] > > > If you don't mind me asking, why is that? I, too, don't like Yoda conditions, > but I've always thought that in this specific case - when checking if a value > lies within/outside a certain range - it makes the code more easily readable > if it is written like this: (lo < val && val < hi). > You are suggesting (val < lo || hi < val) here, which is a bit different. Anyway, good for you. If you are signing up as code reviewer for a Linux kernel subsystem, please feel free to accept and promote such code. For me, it is just confusing. Guenter > Maybe I'm just too accustomed to it? > > (Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue with your decision about not > accepting such code, neither am I trying to convince you otherwise.) > > > Barnabás Pőcze >
