Obvious is still important. Even kernel developers make mistakes.

The 'good taste' example may be more concise but how likely are you to spot bugs in it?

But I think that's part of the argument. Reasoning about edge cases in code full of nested loops and conditionals is hard. Eliminating branches and opportunities to hide fencepost errors (for instance) goes some way towards reducing cognitive noise so you can focus on the meat.

Of course that's not the full argument. And I'll throw in one more: it isn't anywhere near the top of the list in terms of importance, but aesthetically pleasing, elegant code has a certain amount of value, if only to other programmers. (Naturally, it has to be correct, too.)

More likely, because there are fewer code paths to follow. Given Linus's explanation, I think that's part of the basis of his "taste", not conciseness (which in this example I suspect is a byproduct).

> how likely are you to spot bugs in it?

Depends on what you methods are.