[PATCH V3 3/7] Drivers: hv: vmbus: add APIs to send/recv hvsock packet and get the r/w-ability
Dexuan Cui
decui at microsoft.com
Thu Jul 23 03:05:16 UTC 2015
> From: Dan Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 18:36
> To: Dexuan Cui
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:09:10AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > > I'd suggest you do something like
> > >
> > > if (ret == -EAGIAIN)
> > > return 0;
> > > else if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > to make it future-proof (e.g. when a new error is returned by
> > > hv_ringbuffer_peek). And a comment would also be useful as it is unclear
> > > why we silence errors here.
> > Hi Vitaly,
> > Thanks!
> > I think I made a mistake here:
> > the "if (ret != 0) return 0;" should be changed
> > to "if (ret != 0) return ret;"
Usually 0 means success to me, so
to me, "ret != 0" reads like "ret is not successful" and seems natural.
The kind of usage is not rare in the kernel code:
decui at lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' kernel/ include/ ipc/ -r | wc -l
28
decui at lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' drivers/ -r | wc -l
1031
> The double negative really doesn't not make the code more complicated.
> I like using a quadruple negative instead.
>
> if (ret != 0 != 0)
> return ret;
> dan carpenter
Hi Dan, I read this as a humor. :-)
I'll take the suggestion and remember to use this in V4 and in future:
if (ret)
return ret;
Thanks!
-- Dexuan
More information about the devel
mailing list