From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 02:46:23 +0300 Message-ID: <20140519234623.GA17724@mwanda> References: <1400474832-22422-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <20140519201202.GA15585@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Julia Lawall Cc: Saurav Kashyap , Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-scsi , linux-kernel List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org 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