From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753167Ab3LEXJT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:09:19 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0139.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.139]:37827 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750920Ab3LEXJS (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:09:18 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1540:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2692:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3874:4321:5007:7652:7903:10004:10400:10471:10848:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:13069:13161:13229:13255:13311:13357,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: stove86_8b3968de8cd34 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1754 Message-ID: <1386284955.10003.20.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c From: Joe Perches To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Will Tange , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:09:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20131205225051.GC28413@mwanda> References: <1386278633-29641-1-git-send-email-bh34rt@gmail.com> <20131205225051.GC28413@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 01:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:23:53PM +0100, Will Tange wrote: > > Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch tool in bpctl_mod.c [] > if (ret < 0) > return BP_NOT_CAP; > if (ret == 0) > return 1; > return 0; > > More lines, but simpler to understand than the original. > > Think of checkpatch.pl as a pointer to bad code and not that we just > have to silence checkpatch and move on. So true. If 0 is the expected ret value and 1 is the expected function return for not-errored use, I suggest changing the last bit to: if (ret < 0) return BP_NOT_CAP; else if (ret > 0) return 0; return 1; so that the error conditions are done first and the normal return is at the bottom of the function.