From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751740AbdB1TsC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:48:02 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:45426 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751450AbdB1TsC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:48:02 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,221,1484002800"; d="scan'208";a="262498737" Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:18:17 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: SIMRAN SINGHAL cc: Joe Perches , Greg KH , 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 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1488219268-3006-1-git-send-email-singhalsimran0@gmail.com> <1488219268-3006-5-git-send-email-singhalsimran0@gmail.com> <1488224468.25838.11.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches 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. Yes, I think that the issue is just the commit message. Was it really checkpatch that motivated you to do this? Joe maintains checkpatch, and he doesn't think that it gives such a warning. julia