On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:32:06PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if ((host_err = nfsd_map_name_to_uid(argp->rqstp, buf, dummy32, &iattr->ia_uid)))
> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â goto out_nfserr;
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if ((status = nfsd_map_name_to_uid(argp->rqstp, buf, dummy32, &iattr->ia_uid)))
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return status;
>
> Btw, can we please just agree to not doing those idiotic double parenthesis?
Fine by me; I don't write new code that way.
I already committed it like that, so would rather just do any cleanup as
another patch for the next merge window; but let me know what you want.
--b.
>
> There is a really trivial solution to the gcc warning - write your
> code like a sane person, instead of some ex-LISP hacker that has
> withdrawal symptoms. IOW, the above should be written as
>
> status = nfsd_map_name_to_uid(argp->rqstp, buf, dummy32, &iattr->ia_uid);
> if (status)
> return status;
>
> which is a hell of a lot more readable, no?
>
> There is never any real excuse to put an assignment inside a regular
> if-statement.
>
> Inside a while/for loop? Sure. There are real syntactic reasons for
> doing things like
>
> while ((c = getchar()) != EOF) {
> }
>
> that actually make the code better and denser and avoid extra control
> flow crap or duplicate code.
>
> Inside a macro expansion? Again, there may be good reasons to try to
> make it a single statement.
>
> But a simple if-statement? There just isn't any reason for it, since
> the obvious thing is to just write it as two separate statements: the
> assignment, and the if-statement. So why do it and make the code
> uglier and harder to parse?
>
> Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
