From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753429AbbAMGYl (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:24:41 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:60640 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169AbbAMGYk (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:24:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:54:27 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: Greg KH Cc: Emrys Bayliss , forest@alittletooquiet.net, tvboxspy@gmail.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: vt6656: Checkpatch fix: else after break or return Message-ID: <20150113062427.GA8265@sudip-PC> References: <1421081496-15772-1-git-send-email-emrys@paradise.net.nz> <20150113052312.GA3497@sudip-PC> <20150113055817.GA10754@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150113055817.GA10754@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:58:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:53:12AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:51:36AM +1100, Emrys Bayliss wrote: > > > This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl error: > > > rxtx.c:588: WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return > > > > was the checkpatch error solved with this change? have you checked? > > > > and the checkpatch is giving error at line 558 and not at 588. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Emrys Bayliss > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c | 2 -- > > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c > > > index ea5140a..0cce140 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c > > > @@ -574,8 +574,6 @@ static u16 vnt_fill_cts_head(struct vnt_usb_send_context *tx_context, > > > > > > return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head); > > > } > > > - > > > - return 0; > > > > any reason why this return was removed ? > > Because it's not needed. yes, it is not needed. but the way Emrys Bayliss has changed the code, then we will get a compiler warning about no return statement. the code becomes : if (condition) { ... return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head); } else { ... return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head); } I would have removed that return when the code becomes: if (condition) { ... return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head); } ... return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head); or am i wrong in this ? sudip