Re: [PATCH 8/8] mfd: lm3533: Simplify function return logic
From: Johan Hovold
Date: Wed Sep 30 2015 - 17:53:59 EST
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:41:26PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 11:04 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:26:08PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/lm3533-core.c b/drivers/mfd/lm3533-core.c
> >> index 643f3750e830..193ecee1fa7e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mfd/lm3533-core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/lm3533-core.c
> >> @@ -472,11 +472,7 @@ static int lm3533_device_setup(struct lm3533 *lm3533,
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >> - ret = lm3533_set_boost_ovp(lm3533, pdata->boost_ovp);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >> -
> >> - return 0;
> >> + return lm3533_set_boost_ovp(lm3533, pdata->boost_ovp);
> > You're saving a few lines of code but instead introduce asymmetries and
> > obscure the fact that the function returns zero on success.
> I don't think the change makes the code more obscure tbh, the return foo()
> construct is very common in the kernel and most functions return 0 on
> success and a negative errno code on failure.
But it was perfectly obvious from just looking at the function before
> Also, we have a coccinelle semantic patch to find this pattern  so if
> you think that is not worth it, please add a comment to the code. Otherwise
> another developer could attempt to post the same patch since make coccicheck
> will always complain about this file.
Yes, I've NAKed similar so called clean up patches based on that pattern
for USB-serial and would be very glad to see that semantic patch removed.
Coccinelle can be very useful to detect and fix real bugs, but this
return-value exercise is just pointless at best.
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/