On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:38:35PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 07:22:24AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > In terms of run time, this patch is fine but in terms of reading the > > > code using min() makes it less readable. > > > > It's not a runtime question, either should compile to the same object > > code. It's definitely a readabiity and standardization issue. > > > > In this case, IMO it'd be better to use the much more common > > > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > return 0; > > I also prefer this format. > > But at the same time, I can't advise Deepak to go around changing > existing code where the author like ternaries. Thank you Joe, Dan. Just to conclude, I will leave the line untouched as it is no big advantage and the current format is more readable. ./drv > > regards, > dan carpenter >
