Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: fix simple_return.cocci warnings
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Feb 19 2015 - 05:33:53 EST
* Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19/02/15 10:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>- ret = iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >>>+ return iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >>> reg++, &imr->wmask);
> >>>- if (ret)
> >>>- return ret;
> >>>- return 0;
> >>> }
> >>> /**
> >>This flow was a change asked for and supplied in review
> >>feedback for Andy Shevchenko so NAK to this patch.
> >But this pattern:
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > return 0;
> >makes very little sense. Why is it done?
> > Ingo
> Feedback at review was that it's more consistent with the
> code that comes before.
But that feedback makes very little sense. In C we don't
ever want to write:
Because we can return the fine value straight away:
regardless of what comes before.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/