On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:14:51PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 08:57 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 06:15:14AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Rebecca Mckeever wrote: > > > > > > > Replace ternary statement with an if statement followed by an assignment > > > > to increase readability and make error handling more obvious. > > > > Found with minmax coccinelle script. > [] > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_wx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_wx.c > [] > > > > @@ -470,7 +470,9 @@ int ieee80211_wx_get_encode(struct ieee80211_device *ieee, > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > len = crypt->ops->get_key(keybuf, SCM_KEY_LEN, NULL, crypt->priv); > > > > - erq->length = (len >= 0 ? len : 0); > > > > + if (len < 0) > > > > + len = 0; > > > > + erq->length = len; > > > > > > Maybe you could use max here? > > > > Initially Rebecca did use max() but I NAKed it. It's really not less > > readable. Better to handle the error explicitly. Keep the error path > > indented two tabs. Separate from the success path. > > A comment would be useful as it's not obvious it's an 'error' path. > One has to read all 3 get_key functions to determine that. > I'm so confused. Negative error codes are the common case in the kernel. We don't need to comment it. Obviously in an ideal world the get_key() functions would return -EINVAL instead of -1... regards, dan carpenter
