On Sunday 03 August 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > if (WARN_ON(!nb))
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> I could use the notation above instead of:
> if (foo) {
> WARN_ON(1);
> return -ERROR;
> }
>
> Ivo, which one you prefer? The if() with the condition and WARN on the
> branch, or the if(WARN_ON(condition)) ?
Well my preference is either:
if (WARN_ON(!nb))
return -EINVAL;
or
if (foo) {
WARN();
return -EINVAL;
}
Doesn't really matter which of those 2. But like I said in the other patch,
WARN_ON(1) sounds just ugly. ;)
> > BUG() never returns. Same for all the other places you pointed out.
>
> Yes. And I used BUG() on the notify chain calls, because the primitives in
> the kernel code are not doing proper error checking anyway (for speed, I
> suppose)... they just OOPS.
Ok, if for the notify chain BUG() is standard you can use that there. But the
others are preferably WARN(). :)
Ivo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
