[RFC PATCH 1/4] PHY Abstraction Layer III (now with more splitiness)

[Randy Dunlap]

> On Jul 27, 2005, at 13:08, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 25, 2005, at 16:06, Francois Romieu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +int mdiobus_register(struct mii_bus *bus)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +    int i;
> >>>> +    int err = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    spin_lock_init(&bus->mdio_lock);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    if (NULL == bus || NULL == bus->name ||
> >>>> +            NULL == bus->read ||
> >>>> +            NULL == bus->write)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Be spartan:
> >>>     if (!bus || !bus->name || !bus->read || !bus->write)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we have to agree to disagree here.  I could be convinced, but
> >> I'm partial to using NULL explicitly.
> >>
> >
> > But there are 2 issues here (at least).  One is to use NULL or
> > not.  The other is using (constant == var) or (var == constant).
> >
> > It's not described in CodingStlye afaik, but most recent email
> > on the subject strongly prefers (var == constant) [in my
> > unscientific survey -- of bits in my head].
> >
> > So using the suggested style will fix both of these.  :)
> 
> 
> Ok, here I won't agree to disagree with you.  !foo as a check for  
> NULL is a reasonable idea, but not my style.  If that's the preferred  
> style for the kernel, I will do that.
> 
> But (var == constant) is a style that asks for errors.  By putting  
> the constant first in these checks, you never run the risk of leaving  
> a bug like this:
> 
> if (dev = NULL)
>      ...
> 
> This kind of error is quite frustrating to detect, and the eye will  
> often miss it when scanning for errors.  If you follow constant ==  
> var, though, then the bug looks like this:
> 
> if (NULL = dev)
> 
> which is instantly caught by the compiler.
> 
> Just my 32 cents

Yes, we know about that argument.  :)

> >>>> +    /* Otherwise, we allocate the device, and initialize the
> >>>> +     * default values */
> >>>> +    dev = kmalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    if (NULL == dev) {
> >>>> +        errno = -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +        return NULL;
> >>>> +    }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +    memset(dev, 0, sizeof(*dev));
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The kernel provides kcalloc.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I went looking for it, and found it in fs/cifs/misc.c.  I'm hesitant
> >> to link to a function defined in the filesystem code just to save 1
> >> line of code
> >>
> >
> > It's more global than that.
> 
> 
> Should we move the function, then, to include/linux/slab.h?  Or  
> somewhere else?

It's there, like Francois said.  Get use a current tree.

---
~Randy