[CRIU] Re: [PATCH 2/3] restore: Don't close LAST_PID_PATH descriptor if it was not opened

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:14:21PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
...
> >>>
> >>>-	snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", pid - 1);
> >>>-	ca.pid = pid;
> >>>-	ca.clone_flags = ns_clone_flags;
> >>>-	ca.fd = open(LAST_PID_PATH, O_RDWR);
> >>>+	ca.pid		= pid;
> >>>+	ca.clone_flags	= ns_clone_flags;
> >>>+	ca.fd		= open(LAST_PID_PATH, O_RDWR);
> >>
> >>In general I don't appreciate such style of assignments.
> >
> >Sure I'll not toss this lines in new version, but in general
> >I think this style of assignment a way more convenient to
> >read and parse by eyes. So if you don't mind I'll continue
> >using it (if there is strong disagreement -- then sure I'll
> >stop using this style).
> >
> 
> From my POW the problem here is not in the style you are trying to
> invent, but in the attention you are paying to such things.
> I believe that these style efforts are minor - especially comparing
> to other pending tasks in "TODO" list.
> IOW, energy, spent on code cleaning, have to be balanced with the
> energy, spend on the project development. The project is still to
> raw to clean it all the time just for cleanness itself.
> This is just my opinion. And I'm sorry, if it's offensive.

Oh, common Stas, do you really think I sit day/night just to
clean code up? And yes, I believe having some clean code is
a way more important than "lets finish all the todo things,
we will clean it later". No, we don't. There always be tasks
to implement, there always be bugs to fix. But the shite which
comes into the code almost for sure will live there only because
"we have tasks in todo". Hell no I buy it. Sorry if it was offensive ;)

	Cyrill