Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit

[Saurav Kashyap]

Acked-by: Saurav Kashyap <saurav.kashyap@xxxxxxxxxx>

>On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 07:36:48AM +0800, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:07:52PM +0000, Saurav Kashyap wrote:
>> > > Hi Julia,
>> > >
>> > > Status is already set to 0 at the beginning of the function, I think
>> > > we should just "return status" here to be consistent with the rest
>>of
>> > > the function.
>> >
>> > "return 0;" is more clear than "return status;".
>> >
>> > Consistency is great so long as it makes the code easier to read.
>>Don't
>> > lose track of the real goal.
>> 
>> If status were an informative word, there might be a reason for it.  But
>> integer typed functions almost always return their status, so there is
>>no
>> real information.
>
>Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you...  "return 0;" is better.
>
>regards,
>dan carpenter
>

--
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/