On Mon, 27 Jul 2026, Sang-Heon Jeon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 5:30 PM Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026, Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:45:02 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: >> >> Patch 1 adds a Coccinelle script that matches the pattern, including >> >> negation and constant-comparison variants. Where a local variable is >> >> assigned right before the check, the assignment and the two returns >> >> turn into a single return of the assigned expression. >> > >> > Huh, I thought we already had such script. Various script children have >> > been sending such "cleanups" in the past. >> >> We did, and it was removed, I believe in 1a617a8475e8 ("coccinelle: >> misc: remove "complex return code" warnings"), because people just don't >> want this constant churn. >> >> It's perfectly fine to have the error case and happy day scenario >> separated. > > Thanks for sharing the history. > > I checked the mailing list. The removed script looks similar to the > new one, but it is different. The removed script reported a > conditional return followed by an explicit return 0, where the error > case and happy day scenario are separated as you mentioned, and Johan > also complained about this 10 years ago. > > But the new script only reports when both branches return the same > variable, not the explicit 0. So, I think the new script is close to > the restricted version that Julia mentioned 10 years ago, and it > should be acceptable.
ret === 0 after an if (ret) return. BR, Jani. > >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> >> -- >> Jani Nikula, Intel > > Best Regards, > Sang-Heon Jeon -- Jani Nikula, Intel
