Re: [PATCH] stacked ifs (was Re: [PATCH 02/12] handle multiple network paths to AoE device)

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>]

On Jul 16 2007 17:01, Greg KH wrote:
>> 
>> > > ugh.  Do this:
>> > > 
>> > > 	do {
>> > > 		if (t == d->htgt)
>> > > 			continue;
>> > > 		if (!(*t)->ifp->nd)
>> > > 			continue;
>> > > 		if ((*t)->nout >= (*t)->maxout)
>> > > 			continue;
>> > > 			
>> > > 		<stuff>
>> > > 	} while (++t ...)
>> > 
>> > Do you think the "stacked ifs" in the first version above could be
>> > accepted as a convenient extension to the K&R-based conventions in
>> > Documentation/CodingStyle?
>> 
>> Maybe.  I don't recall seeing any kernel code which uses that convention:
>> everyone uses &&.  So personally I'd prefer to see kernel code stick to the
>> one convention, given that there is not, afacit, any significant advantage
>> to the alternative one.
>
>I agree, let's stick with the convention we already have and use
>instead.

Yup. Either the "do this" (see above) or the "&&" variant, though, the latter
can become quite nested or long.

[ In fact, if you have
  void function(struct something *arg)
  {
  	if (arg != NULL) {
  		lots_of_code;
  	}
  }
  it is perhaps better to write as
  {
  	if (arg == NULL)
  		return;
  	lots_of_code;
  }
  since that reduces the indent by at least one. ]


	Jan
--