Hi, > > Yoda conditions lack readability, and QEMU has a > > strict compiler configuration for checking a common > > mistake like "if (dev = NULL)". Make it a written rule. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com> > > --- > > CODING_STYLE | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE > > index 4280945..b08bfb4 100644 > > --- a/CODING_STYLE > > +++ b/CODING_STYLE > > @@ -91,3 +91,17 @@ Mixed declarations (interleaving statements and > declarations within blocks) > > are not allowed; declarations should be at the beginning of blocks. In > other > > words, the code should not generate warnings if using GCC's > > -Wdeclaration-after-statement option. > > + > > +6. Conditional statements > > + > > +When comparing a variable for (in)equality with a constant, list the > > +constant on the right, as in: > > + > > +if (a == 0) { > > + /* Reads like: "If a is equal to 0" */ > > I actually tend to read it as 'if a equals 0'. > OK.
> > + do_something(); > > +} > > + > > +Rationale: Yoda conditions (as in 'if (0 == a)') are awkward to read. > > I know this is my suggested text, but now that I'm re-reading it, I'd > recommend s/0/1/ in all three places, since comparison to 0 is one of > those special cases where '!a' is faster to write than 'a == 0'. > Got it. > > +Besides, good compilers already warn users when '==' is mis-typed as '=', > > +even when the constant is on the right. > > With those changes, > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > OK, thanks! Best regards, -Gonglei