On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:49:03AM +0200, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > [+cc Greg for visibility] > > Hello, > > [...] > > > > > > The previous coding style is preferable one in the Linux kernel. > > > > > > int rc = pci_dev_reset_slot_function(dev, probe); > > > > > > if (rc != -ENOTTY) > > > > > > return rc; > > > > > > return pci_parent_bus_reset(dev, probe); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That'd be news to me, do you have a reference? I've never seen > > > > > complaints for ternaries previously. Thanks, > > > > > > > > The complaint is not to ternaries, but to the function call as one of > > > > the parameters, that makes it harder to read. > > > > > > Sorry, I don't find a function call as a parameter to a ternary to be > > > extraordinary, nor do I find it to be a discouraged usage model within > > > the kernel. This seems like a pretty low bar for hard to read code. > > > > It is up to us where this bar is set. > > The only person who ever pulled my ear, so to speak, over using ternary > was Greg as a bad style where, especially where it does not need to be > used. Good to hear that I'm not alone. > > But, I digress. I humbly think that we should move back on track and > finish review of Raphael's patch. Would use a ternary here be > a show-stopper? Of course no, I would fix it locally when apply. Thanks > > Krzysztof
