public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@gmail.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
	outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:21:44 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702282019580.2171@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488309512.25838.32.camel@perches.com>



On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 00:41 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
> > <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:
> > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch warning that else is not generally
> > > > > useful after a break or return.
> > > > > This was done using Coccinelle:
> > > > > @@
> > > > > expression e2;
> > > > > statement s1;
> > > > > @@
> > > > > if(e2) { ... return ...; }
> > > > > -else
> > > > >          s1
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -26,30 +26,26 @@ __dev16 gdm_cpu_to_dev16(struct gdm_endian *ed, u16 x)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       if (ed->dev_ed == ENDIANNESS_LITTLE)
> > > > >               return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_le16(x);
> > > > > -     else
> > > > > -             return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > > > +     return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > >
> > > > again, not a checkpatch message for any of the
> > > > suggested modified hunks.
> > > >
> >
> > I am not getting what's the problem in removing else or may be I
> > am wrong you just want to say that I should change the commit message.
>
> 2 things:
>
> 1: The commit message is incorrect.
> 2: This form is fundamentally OK:
>
> 	if (foo)
> 		return bar;
> 	else
> 		return baz;
>
>
> So I think this patch is not good.

I agree in this case.  The two branches are quite parallel.  In some of
the other patches, the if was looking for the absence of some resource or
the failure of something, so there was a clear distinction between one
branch being cleanup on failure and the other branch being the continuing
successful computation, even if it is just to return a success indicator.

julia

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-28 20:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-27 18:14 [PATCH 1/5] staging: lustre: Remove unnecessary else after return simran singhal
2017-02-27 18:14 ` [PATCH 2/5] staging: rtl8192u: " simran singhal
2017-02-27 21:25   ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall
2017-02-27 18:14 ` [PATCH 3/5] staging: rtl8712: " simran singhal
2017-02-27 21:19   ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall
2017-02-28 19:17     ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-28 19:19       ` Julia Lawall
2017-02-27 18:14 ` [PATCH 4/5] staging: sm750fb: " simran singhal
2017-02-27 19:31   ` Joe Perches
2017-02-27 20:22     ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-27 21:15   ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall
2017-02-28 18:56     ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-28 19:00       ` Julia Lawall
2017-02-28 19:05         ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-27 18:14 ` [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: " simran singhal
2017-02-27 19:41   ` Joe Perches
2017-02-27 20:19     ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-28 19:11       ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-28 19:18         ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall
2017-02-28 19:18         ` Joe Perches
2017-02-28 19:21           ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2017-02-27 19:25 ` [PATCH 1/5] staging: lustre: " Joe Perches
2017-02-27 20:21   ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-27 20:43     ` Joe Perches
2017-02-28 19:01       ` SIMRAN SINGHAL
2017-02-28 19:14         ` [Outreachy kernel] " Julia Lawall

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.20.1702282019580.2171@hadrien \
    --to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
    --cc=outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=singhalsimran0@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox