From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesper Juhl Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/30] return statement cleanup - kill pointless parentheses (fwd) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:54:22 +0100 Message-ID: <41C7D6AE.2080703@dif.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Brown, Len" Cc: Pavel Machek , ACPI mailing list List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Brown, Len wrote: > > >>Parenthesis around returns statements were driving me crazy for quite >>a long time -- return is not a function and I do not think it should >>look as one. Could we get this applied? > > > K&R-2 says "Parentheses are often used around the expression, but they > are optional." > > Groping around the kernel, it seems that about 10% of return statements > use these optional parentheses. > > If we modify these, are we going to modify the other 10,000 instances > or is that what your other 29 patches do? > I had originally planned to do just that, but people on LKML responded with "only submit such cleanups via maintainers who actually want them", so I gave up on most of it again and just created this one patch for Pavel when he asked for it. -- Jesper Juhl ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/