On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 12:28:43 +0200 Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/13/23 16:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 01:31:42PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > >> On 3/6/23 13:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:54:22AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/23 17:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 12:57:54PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>>>>> + for (i = 0; !ret && i < gts->num_avail_all_scales; i++) > >>>>> > >>>>> Much easier to read if you move this... > >>>>> > >>>>>> + ret = iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale(gts, all_gains[i], > >>>>>> + >s->avail_all_scales_table[i * 2], > >>>>>> + >s->avail_all_scales_table[i * 2 + 1]); > >>>>> > >>>>> ...here as > >>>>> > >>>>> if (ret) > >>>>> break; > >>>> > >>>> I think the !ret in loop condition is obvious. Adding break and brackets > >>>> would not improve this. > >>> > >>> It moves it to the regular pattern. Yours is not so distributed in the kernel. > >> > >> I believe we can find examples of both patterns in kernel. I don't think the > >> "many people use different pattern" is a great reason to add break + > >> brackets which (in my eyes) give no additional value to code I am planning > >> to keep reading also in the future... > > > > The problem is that your pattern is not so standard (distributed) and hence > > less maintainable. > > I am sorry but I can't really agree with you on this one. For me adding > the break and brackets would just complicate the flow and thus decrease > the maintainability. I'm with the if (ret) break; school of thought on this one. Never like for loops with complex conditions, I guess because I've trained my eyes to ignore them ;)
