From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sohny Thomas Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:48:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue Message-Id: <55939890.6090903@zoho.com> List-Id: References: <55930BB1.10502@zoho.com> <20150701065749.GA2411@sudip-PC> In-Reply-To: <20150701065749.GA2411@sudip-PC> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sudip Mukherjee Cc: benjamin.romer@unisys.com, david.kershner@unisys.com, bryan.thompson@unisys.com, erik.arfvidson@unisys.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sparmaintainer@unisys.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thanks for review, my answers inline On 01-07-2015 12:27, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote: >> >> FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl >> >> Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas >> --- >> drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c >> index d5ad017..f3674de 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c >> @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan, >> return -1; >> >> off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset; >> - if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) { >> + >> + if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) >> return -1; >> - } >> + > why you are inserting new line here? I did it so that its readable, will remove it if not required > >> memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info)); >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams) >> >> i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE, >> &scsi.wwnn, NULL); >> - if (i) { >> + if (i) >> return 1; >> - } >> - return 0; >> + else >> + return 0; > No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not > required after return". why did you introduce this "else"? I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean. Otherwise the above code looks like this if(i) return 1; return 0; > > regards > sudip > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus