I agree 100%. If you have anything more complex than
if (error) return (error);
I want it to look like
if ((expr) || (expr2) || (expr3)) {
return (error);
}
> Just look at some of the crap we have in devfs..
No kidding, look at the nested if, that's insane.
> if (fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL) return (TRUE);
> if (devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) && fs_info->devfsd_sleeping) return TRUE;
> if ( is_devfsd_or_child (fs_info) ) return (FALSE);
> set_current_state (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
> if (!devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) || !fs_info->devfsd_sleeping)
> if (fs_info->devfsd_task) schedule ();
> remove_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
> __set_current_state (TASK_RUNNING);
> return (TRUE);
I took a pass at this, I think this is better (note the use of 1/2 tabs
as "continuation" lines, that's a Sun thing and it works pretty well:
if ((fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL) ||
(devfsd_queue_empty(fs_info) && fs_info->devfsd_sleeping)) {
return (TRUE);
}
if (is_devfsd_or_child(fs_info)) return (FALSE);
set_current_state (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
add_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
if ((!devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) || !fs_info->devfsd_sleeping) &&
fs_info->devfsd_task) {
schedule();
}
remove_wait_queue(&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
return (TRUE);
----- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/