From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754382AbaLBGkX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 01:40:23 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:45445 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860AbaLBGkV (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2014 01:40:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:58:06 -0800 From: Darren Hart To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= , Matthew Garrett , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gabriele Mazzotta , Alex Hung Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform: x86: dell-rbtn: Dell Airplane Mode Switch driver Message-ID: <20141125215804.GC116670@vmdeb7> References: <1416755361-17357-1-git-send-email-pali.rohar@gmail.com> <1416755361-17357-2-git-send-email-pali.rohar@gmail.com> <20141128113328.GS1304@lahna.fi.intel.com> <201411281245.55747@pali> <20141128115457.GT1304@lahna.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20141128115457.GT1304@lahna.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 01:54:57PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:45:55PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I will fix all those style problems and add some comments. > > > > On Friday 28 November 2014 12:33:28 Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > > > > + return; > > > > + > > > > + rfkill_set_states(rfkill, !output, !output); > > > > > > You can also write it like: > > > > > > if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) > > > rfkill_set_states(rfkill, !output, !output); > > > > > > which looks better to me at least. > > > > > > > In whole module I'm using this style: > > > > f1(); > > if (f1_failed) > > return; > > f2() > > if (f2_failed) > > return; > > > > So I would like not to change it for one function. > > Fair enough. And, in my opinion, it is better to test for errors than to test for success. This keeps the main logic out of a nested block. Not so critical here, but a good rule of thumb. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center