Removing the NT_STATUS_HAVE_NO_MEMORY_AND_FREE macro

[Kamen Mazdrashki]

Frankly said, I see no real value in removing those macros.
I *do* agree that changing code flow in a  macros is generally
bad practice and makes code hard to follow. In this case though
it is not like there are many many such macros defined. I think
we have under 10 of those kind I think :)

Garmin, as far as understood you have used a script to make
most of NT_STATUS_HAVE_NO_MEMORY_AND_FREE.
If could have it done by hand though, I am sure that you you'd
have noticed how bothersome is that for future coder :)

And I also think, that this not only makes the code little uglier.
It also makes it harder to follow - now one need to look after
at least two kind of "if" - 1) for memory checks; 2) for function
real logic.

With best regards,
Kamen



On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Garming Sam <garming at catalyst.net.nz>wrote:

> On 13/02/14 18:27, Garming Sam wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Included are some patches to remove the NT_STATUS_HAVE_NO_MEMORY_AND_FREE
>> macro.
>>
>> I'm told that the we shouldn't be using such macros anymore and so I
>> thought I might try and get rid of them. When I was going through the code
>> earlier, I came across this one which is especially terrible since it
>> doesn't have any mention of even a return.
>>
>> There's a few others that we should get rid of. I do note that
>> NT_STATUS_HAVE_NO_MEMORY has something like 1000 instances. I could
>> obviously remove them, but they're going to have to be checked and it's
>> probably going to be a nuisance to someone.
>>
>> The first patch I just ran the code through a script. There were only a
>> few left, so in the second patch I fixed the remaining ones manually.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Garming Sam
>>
>
> Here's a few more removed. You'll notice that these ones were hardly used
> at all in the code.
>
> Anyways, thanks Jeremy.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Garming Sam
>