Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200223011154.GY23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200223011626.4103706-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20200223011626.4103706-21-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20200223011626.4103706-21-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 22 Feb 2020 18:19:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wikzXu_Veyj-H90HmLRof5vyMVZCWp03J_pC8fjb1_N8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 21/34] merging pick_link() with get_link(), part 4
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Ok, so far I haven't seen anything bad. But I keep noticing these odd
stylistic things...

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:22 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> -       return step_into(nd, flags, dentry, inode, seq);
> +       err = step_into(nd, flags, dentry, inode, seq);
> +       if (!err)
> +               return NULL;
> +       else if (err > 0)
> +               return get_link(nd);
> +       else
> +               return ERR_PTR(err);
>  }

What?

Those "else" statements make no sense.

Each if-statement has a "return" in it. It's done. The else part is
not adding anything but confusion.

IOW, this should be

        if (!err)
                return NULL;
        if (err > 0)
                return get_link(nd);
        return ERR_PTR(err);

with not an 'else' in sight.

              Linus