* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-19 16:07 ` Saurav Kashyap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Saurav Kashyap @ 2014-05-19 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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.
==========
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
index 76af6b6..e339833 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
@@ -4587,7 +4587,6 @@ qla2x00_abort_isp(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
if (unlikely(pci_channel_offline(ha->pdev) &&
ha->flags.pci_channel_io_perm_failure)) {
clear_bit(ISP_ABORT_RETRY, &vha->dpc_flags);
- status = 0;
return status;
}
=========
Thanks,
~Saurav
>From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
>
>Delete unnecessary use of a local variable to immediately return 0.
>
>A simplified version of the semantic patch that fixes this problem is as
>follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
>// <smpl>
>@r exists@
>local idexpression ret;
>expression e;
>position p;
>@@
>
>-ret = 0;
>... when != ret = e
>return
>- ret
>+ 0
> ;
>// </smpl>
>
>Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
>
>---
>Changed subject line, which was not appreciated by some spam filters.
>
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>index 38aeb54..a63f9b6 100644
>--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>@@ -4593,8 +4593,7 @@ qla2x00_abort_isp(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> if (unlikely(pci_channel_offline(ha->pdev) &&
> ha->flags.pci_channel_io_perm_failure)) {
> clear_bit(ISP_ABORT_RETRY, &vha->dpc_flags);
>- status = 0;
>- return status;
>+ return 0;
> }
>
> ha->isp_ops->get_flash_version(vha, req->ring);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-19 16:07 ` Saurav Kashyap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Saurav Kashyap @ 2014-05-19 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1946 bytes --]
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.
==========
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
index 76af6b6..e339833 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
@@ -4587,7 +4587,6 @@ qla2x00_abort_isp(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
if (unlikely(pci_channel_offline(ha->pdev) &&
ha->flags.pci_channel_io_perm_failure)) {
clear_bit(ISP_ABORT_RETRY, &vha->dpc_flags);
- status = 0;
return status;
}
=========
Thanks,
~Saurav
>From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
>
>Delete unnecessary use of a local variable to immediately return 0.
>
>A simplified version of the semantic patch that fixes this problem is as
>follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
>// <smpl>
>@r exists@
>local idexpression ret;
>expression e;
>position p;
>@@
>
>-ret = 0;
>... when != ret = e
>return
>- ret
>+ 0
> ;
>// </smpl>
>
>Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
>
>---
>Changed subject line, which was not appreciated by some spam filters.
>
> drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>index 38aeb54..a63f9b6 100644
>--- a/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>+++ b/drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
>@@ -4593,8 +4593,7 @@ qla2x00_abort_isp(scsi_qla_host_t *vha)
> if (unlikely(pci_channel_offline(ha->pdev) &&
> ha->flags.pci_channel_io_perm_failure)) {
> clear_bit(ISP_ABORT_RETRY, &vha->dpc_flags);
>- status = 0;
>- return status;
>+ return 0;
> }
>
> ha->isp_ops->get_flash_version(vha, req->ring);
[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 4826 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
2014-05-19 16:07 ` Saurav Kashyap
@ 2014-05-19 20:12 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2014-05-19 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Saurav Kashyap
Cc: Julia Lawall, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-19 20:12 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2014-05-19 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Saurav Kashyap
Cc: Julia Lawall, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
2014-05-19 20:12 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2014-05-19 23:36 ` Julia Lawall
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2014-05-19 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Saurav Kashyap, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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.
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-19 23:36 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2014-05-19 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Saurav Kashyap, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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.
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
2014-05-19 23:36 ` Julia Lawall
@ 2014-05-19 23:46 ` Dan Carpenter
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2014-05-19 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall
Cc: Saurav Kashyap, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-19 23:46 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2014-05-19 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall
Cc: Saurav Kashyap, Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi,
linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
2014-05-19 23:46 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2014-05-20 15:07 ` Saurav Kashyap
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Saurav Kashyap @ 2014-05-20 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter, Julia Lawall
Cc: Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi, linux-kernel
Acked-by: Saurav Kashyap <saurav.kashyap@qlogic.com>
>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
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
@ 2014-05-20 15:07 ` Saurav Kashyap
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Saurav Kashyap @ 2014-05-20 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter, Julia Lawall
Cc: Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
James E.J. Bottomley, linux-scsi, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 932 bytes --]
Acked-by: Saurav Kashyap <saurav.kashyap@qlogic.com>
>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
>
[-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --]
[-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Size: 4554 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread