RE: [PATCH V3 3/7] Drivers: hv: vmbus: add APIs to send/recv hvsock packet and get the r/w-ability

[Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>]

> From: Dan Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 18:36
> To: Dexuan Cui
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:09:10AM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > > I'd suggest you do something like
> > >
> > >     if (ret == -EAGIAIN)
> > >         return 0;
> > >     else if (ret)
> > >         return ret;
> > >
> > > to make it future-proof (e.g. when a new error is returned by
> > > hv_ringbuffer_peek). And a comment would also be useful as it is unclear
> > > why we silence errors here.
> > Hi Vitaly,
> > Thanks!
> > I think I made a mistake here:
> > the "if (ret != 0) return 0;" should be changed
> > to   "if (ret != 0) return ret;"
Usually 0 means success to me, so 
to me, "ret != 0" reads like "ret is not successful" and seems natural. 

The kind of usage is not rare in the kernel code:

decui@lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' kernel/ include/ ipc/  -r  | wc -l
28
decui@lin:~/linux-next$ grep 'if (ret != 0)' drivers/   -r  | wc -l
1031
 
> The double negative really doesn't not make the code more complicated.
> I like using a quadruple negative instead.
> 
> 	if (ret != 0 != 0)
> 		return ret;
> dan carpenter
Hi Dan, I read this as a humor.  :-)

I'll take the suggestion and remember to use this in V4 and in future:
 
if (ret)
	return ret;

Thanks!

-- Dexuan