From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Input - Fix make coccicheck warnings
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:25:07 -0700
Message-ID: <20151002182507.GQ8437@dtor-ws>
References: <1443793229-22363-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:35363 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751919AbbJBSZM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-input@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:25:12 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1443793229-22363-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com>
Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ferruh Yigit <fery@cypress.com>, Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>, Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com>, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@bq.com>, Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com>, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, Shailendra Verma <shailendra.capricorn@gmail.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Duson Lin <dusonlin@emc.com.tw>, Jingoo Han <jg1.han@samsung.com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@trendmicro.com.cn>, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@bitmath.org>, Daniel Mack <linux@zonque.org>, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk>, Matt Ranostay <mranostay@gmail.com>

Hi Javier,

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:40:11PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
> 
> This series contains trivial patches with fixes to different warnings
> reported by make coccichek M=drivers/input.
> 
> The patches don't contain functional changes but makes the functions
> simpler and removes unnecessary lines of code.

I disagree with some "simplify function return logic" patches: when
there are several actions that may fail I prefer explicit:

	error = actionN();
	if (error)
		return error;

	return 0;

even on the last one as it keep with the code flow and makes it easier
to move stuff around.

Please consider patches that not explicitly replied to as applied a
dropped.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry