Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1836398.tdWV9SEqCh@kreacher> <CAHp75Vc2Lci4ewdosqX4Thm6ME7pKjKw+C+wtUsq2esRM-eXjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hCPG0_4MUW5bt+FLtPmnFZ9NUxsEiFpd-6+wOmYxPm5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp75VeS+3-N9rV3CfTLHKKD_pzTHrz4Lnv5XsEbd22CoCJeKw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeS+3-N9rV3CfTLHKKD_pzTHrz4Lnv5XsEbd22CoCJeKw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:07:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h-hB918OxUjHQCypyR8JKNEV8FxR7LRYaraoq+Mazfhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: runtime: Avoid device usage count underflows
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 6:53 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 6:17 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +               retval = rpm_drop_usage_count(dev);
> > > > +               if (retval > 0) {
> > > >                         trace_rpm_usage_rcuidle(dev, rpmflags);
> > > >                         return 0;
> > > > +               } else if (retval < 0) {
> > > > +                       return retval;
> > > >                 }
> > >
> > > Can be written in a form
> > >
> > >                if (retval < 0)
> > >                        return retval;
> > >                if (retval > 0) {
> > >                        trace_rpm_usage_rcuidle(dev, rpmflags);
> > >                        return 0;
> > >                }
> > >
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > And why would it be better?
>
> Depends on the perception:

Well, exactly.

> a) less characters to parse (no 'else');

But to me, with the "else" it is clear that the conditionals are
related to each other which is not so clear otherwise at first sight.
YMMV

> b) checking for errors first, which seems more or less standard pattern.

So the checks can be reversed no problem, but this is such a minor point ,,,