Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: meter: use min() for comparison and assignment

[Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 04:08:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:40:00AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Simplify code by using recommended min helper macro for logical
> > evaluation and value assignment. This issue is identified by
> > coccicheck using the minmax.cocci file.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > index a9a06e8dda51..a6ce7b24cc8f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/meter/ade7854-i2c.c
> > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int ade7854_i2c_write_reg(struct device *dev,
> >  unlock:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
> >
> > -	return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > +	return min(ret, 0);
>
> The original code is better.
>
> If it's a failure return the error code.  If it's not return zero.
>
> You can only compare apples to apples.  min() makes sense if you're
> talking about two lengths.  But here if ret is negative that's an error
> code.  If it's positive that's the number of bytes.  If the error
> code is less than the number of bytes then return that?  What???  It
> makes no sense.

Thanks for your view point. I agree.

>
> In terms of run time, this patch is fine but in terms of reading the
> code using min() makes it less readable.

Okay, The proposal does not make much difference, so will leave the original
line as is.

Thank you,
./drv

>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>