From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753398AbbE1Ilc (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 04:41:32 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0046.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.46]:53238 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130AbbE1IlU (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 04:41:20 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 50,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:967:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2525:2553:2560:2563:2682:2685:2828:2859:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:3947:3950:3953:3956:3959:4321:5007:6261:8985:9025:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12043:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: ducks94_45938aa37e74c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1792 Message-ID: <1432802477.2846.209.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: gdm72xx: remove unneeded test From: Joe Perches To: Julia Lawall Cc: Dan Carpenter , Laurent Navet , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 01:41:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1432758345-8095-1-git-send-email-laurent.navet@gmail.com> <1432758608.2846.169.camel@perches.com> <20150528071444.GW11588@mwanda> <1432800395.2846.205.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 10:33 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote: > I think these are very equivalent style to > > the repeated: > > > > ret = foo(); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > ... > > ret = bar(); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > > > return ret; > > > > and people seem to prefer changing those. > > Maybe if there is a whole sequence of them, it it is reasonable to keep > them. But if there is just one, it seems complicated for nothing. Agree with that. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/2/321 > In the > big scheme of things, though, there are probably better things one could > do than changing all of them. Agree with that too.