From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Subject: Re: [PATCH] GMAC: fix simple_return.cocci warnings Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:13:39 +0800 Message-ID: <54AB8B23.3080303@rock-chips.com> References: <201501030822.7cG5bXrm%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20150103002526.GA15863@waimea.lkp.intel.com> <1420246005.23591.7.camel@perches.com> <20150104.222022.55122203599464788.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fengguang.wu@intel.com, kbuild-all@01.org, peppe.cavallaro@st.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , joe@perches.com Return-path: Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.139]:43465 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751964AbbAFHNv (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 02:13:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20150104.222022.55122203599464788.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi! David What should I do now? On 2015/1/5 11:20, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Perches > 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 >>> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu >>> --- >>> >>> 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. > > >