Hi Russell,
Am 2023-01-03 23:19, schrieb Russell King (Oracle):
On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 11:21:08AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
Am 2023-01-03 11:13, schrieb Russell King (Oracle):
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 12:07:19AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
> > + if (!bus || !bus->name)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* An access method always needs both read and write operations */
> > + if ((bus->read && !bus->write) ||
> > + (!bus->read && bus->write) ||
> > + (bus->read_c45 && !bus->write_c45) ||
> > + (!bus->read_c45 && bus->write_c45))
>
> I wonder whether the following would be even more readable:
>
> if (!bus->read != !bus->write || !bus->read_c45 != !bus->write_c45)
That's what Andrew had originally. But there was a comment from Sergey
[1]
which I agree with. I had a hard time wrapping my head around that, so
I
just listed all the possible bad cases.
The only reason I suggested it was because when looked at your code,
it also took several reads to work out what it was trying to do!
Would using !!bus->read != !!bus->write would help or make it worse,
!!ptr being the more normal way to convert something to a boolean?
IMHO that makes it even harder. But I doubt we will find an expression
that will work for everyone. I'll go with your suggestion/Andrew's first
version in the next iteration.
-michael
