From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Dietsche Subject: Re: [PATCH] wm8940: remove unecessary if statement Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:45:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4DECCBFB.2020307@cuw.edu> References: <1307321274-21858-1-git-send-email-Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu> <4DEC9E6B.8030505@cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DEC9E6B.8030505@cam.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.de, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, lrg@ti.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi Jonathan, On 06/06/2011 04:31 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 06/06/11 01:47, Greg Dietsche wrote: > >> the code always returns ret regardless, so if(ret) check is unecessary. >> > Good point, though please spell check your commit messages. > unecessary -> unnecessary > oops! usually I'm the guy critiquing spelling :) > Also if you want to do this sort of cleanup, please also fix the > equivalent in wm8940_resume and wm8940_add_widgets. Ack is for > what is here, plus those if you do them. > I will take a look at these, but it might be a few days. I used coccinelle to create this patch and my semantic patch wasn't 'smart' enough to find them. > Just as an aside, there is no earthly point in cc'ing lkml for a > simple cleanup like this. Just adds to already huge amount of noise! > Thanks for all of your feedback. In your opinion, what is the best way for someone such as myself to send patches like these? I read in Documentation/SubmittingPatches "Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Also, for this embarrassing spelling problem... do I submit a new patch? :) Thanks, Greg