Re: [PATCH] x86: bpf_jit_comp: simplify trivial boolean return

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Quentin Lambert
<lambert.quentin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remove if then else statements preceding
> boolean return. Occurences were found using
> Coccinelle.
>
> The semantic patch used was:
>
> @@
> expression expr;
> @@
>
>
> - if ( expr )
> -       return true;
> - else
> -       return false;
> + return expr;
>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com>
>
> ---
>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c |    8 +++-----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> index 3f62734..1542f39 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
> @@ -135,11 +135,9 @@ static const int reg2hex[] = {
>   */
>  static inline bool is_ereg(u32 reg)
>  {
> -       if (reg == BPF_REG_5 || reg == AUX_REG ||
> -           (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9))
> -               return true;
> -       else
> -               return false;
> +       return (reg == BPF_REG_5 ||
> +               reg == AUX_REG ||
> +               (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9));

please remove extra () around the whole expression, and
align in properly, and
don't move reg==AUX_REG check to a different line.
Subject is not warranted. I don't think it's a simplification.
imo existing code is fine and I don't think the time spent
reviewing such changes is worth it when there is no
improvement in readability.