Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ac6d83d6-c8b0-e0bd-10aa-a49897679edb@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:26:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     "Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net" <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        "linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220623031515.402691-1-marcus.yu.56@gmail.com>
 <d50c16c1-0bc2-fdc4-16ab-0c27df824ffb@gmail.com>
 <06893216a5a04d7e84dfe3e132d333f6@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <YrUv1sPuny1M1Orh@zephyrus-g14.localdomain>
From:   Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YrUv1sPuny1M1Orh@zephyrus-g14.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/24/22 05:30, Chang Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:05:40PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>> ...
>>> Seems to work. But the rules which operation is done first && or == are
>>> not too easy.
>>
>> They are the way around you want them to be.
>> == generates a truth value.
>> && and || compare truth values,
>>
>> The only 'wrong' operator priorities are & and |.
>> The short-circuiting && and || weren't in the very early
>> versions of C - the bitwise & and | were used.
>> When K&R added && and || they left the priorities of & an | alone.
>> I they they've later said they should have bitten the bullet
>> and changed the priorities and all the existing C code
>>
>>> I would prefer to have:
>>>
>>> if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == free_recv_queue))
>>>
>>> So it is very easy to read what is evaluated first.
>>
>> That just starts adding too many () and makes more complex
>> conditionals hard to read.
>>
>> 	David
>>
>>>
>>> But this is just my opinion and does not have to be right.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch.
>>>
>>> Bye Philipp
>>
>> -
>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> 
> In my humble opinion it just boils down to personal preference in this
> case. The kernel coding style guidlines don't seem to have a definitive
> gold standard regarding this. I will leave the patch as-is for now, but
> if anybody feels strongly that the () needs to be removed please feel
> free to let me know and I'll make the change.

Please consider that the person you want to sign-of for this patch is 
most likely Greg K-H. I propose to fix first what he is asking for.

Bye Philipp