[PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[kbuild test robot]

drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c:425:1-4: WARNING: end returns can be simpified

 Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
 preceding function call.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci

CC: Roger Chen <roger.chen@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
---

 dwmac-rk.c |    6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
@@ -422,11 +422,7 @@ static int rk_gmac_init(struct platform_
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ret = gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	return 0;
+	return gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
 }
 
 static void rk_gmac_exit(struct platform_device *pdev, void *priv)

Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 08:25 +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c:425:1-4: WARNING: end returns can be simpified
> 
>  Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
>  preceding function call.
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> 
> CC: Roger Chen <roger.chen@rock-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> ---
> 
>  dwmac-rk.c |    6 +-----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> @@ -422,11 +422,7 @@ static int rk_gmac_init(struct platform_
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	ret = gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	return 0;
> +	return gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);

I think this change is not particularly better.

When the pattern is multiply repeated like:

{
	...
	foo = bar();
	if (foo)
		return foo;

	foo = baz();
	if (foo)
		return foo;

	foo = qux();
	if (foo)
		return foo;

	return 0;
}

I think it's better to not change the last
test in the sequence just to minimize overall
line count.

Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[David Miller]

From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:46:45 -0800

> On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 08:25 +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c:425:1-4: WARNING: end returns can be simpified
>> 
>>  Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
>>  preceding function call.
>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
>> 
>> CC: Roger Chen <roger.chen@rock-chips.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>> ---
>> 
>>  dwmac-rk.c |    6 +-----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
>> @@ -422,11 +422,7 @@ static int rk_gmac_init(struct platform_
>>  	if (ret)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>> -	ret = gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		return ret;
>> -
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
> 
> I think this change is not particularly better.
> 
> When the pattern is multiply repeated like:
 ...
> I think it's better to not change the last
> test in the sequence just to minimize overall
> line count.

I think it's a wash and that both ways are about the same to me.

I won't apply this, sorry.

Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[Roger]

Hi! David

What should I do now?

On 2015/1/5 11:20, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:46:45 -0800
>
>> On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 08:25 +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c:425:1-4: WARNING: end returns can be simpified
>>>
>>>   Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
>>>   preceding function call.
>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
>>>
>>> CC: Roger Chen <roger.chen@rock-chips.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   dwmac-rk.c |    6 +-----
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
>>> @@ -422,11 +422,7 @@ static int rk_gmac_init(struct platform_
>>>   	if (ret)
>>>   		return ret;
>>>   
>>> -	ret = gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
>>> -	if (ret)
>>> -		return ret;
>>> -
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
>> I think this change is not particularly better.
>>
>> When the pattern is multiply repeated like:
>   ...
>> I think it's better to not change the last
>> test in the sequence just to minimize overall
>> line count.
> I think it's a wash and that both ways are about the same to me.
>
> I won't apply this, sorry.
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 15:13 +0800, Roger wrote:
> What should I do now?

I think it would be better to change
"int gmac_clk_enable" to "void gmac_clk_enable"
(it always returns 0)

This function should simply call gmac_clk_enable
and return 0;

> >>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> >>> @@ -422,11 +422,7 @@ static int rk_gmac_init(struct platform_
> >>>   	if (ret)
> >>>   		return ret;
> >>>   
> >>> -	ret = gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
> >>> -	if (ret)
> >>> -		return ret;
> >>> -
> >>> -	return 0;
> >>> +	return gmac_clk_enable(bsp_priv, true);
> >> I think this change is not particularly better.
> >>
> >> When the pattern is multiply repeated like:
> >   ...
> >> I think it's better to not change the last
> >> test in the sequence just to minimize overall
> >> line count.
> > I think it's a wash and that both ways are about the same to me.
> >
> > I won't apply this, sorry.

Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings

[David Miller]

From: Roger <roger.chen@rock-chips.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:13:39 +0800

> What should I do now?

Nothing, I'm simply not applying this patch.