On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:58:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:53:12AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 03:51:36AM +1100, Emrys Bayliss wrote:
> > > This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl error:
> > > rxtx.c:588: WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> >
> > was the checkpatch error solved with this change? have you checked?
> >
> > and the checkpatch is giving error at line 558 and not at 588.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Emrys Bayliss <em...@paradise.net.nz>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > index ea5140a..0cce140 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c
> > > @@ -574,8 +574,6 @@ static u16 vnt_fill_cts_head(struct
> > > vnt_usb_send_context *tx_context,
> > >
> > > return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - return 0;
> >
> > any reason why this return was removed ?
>
> Because it's not needed.
yes, it is not needed. but the way Emrys Bayliss has changed the code, then we
will get a compiler warning about no return statement.
the code becomes :
if (condition) {
...
return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
} else {
...
return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
}
I would have removed that return when the code becomes:
if (condition) {
...
return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g_fb(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
}
...
return vnt_rxtx_datahead_g(tx_context, &buf->data_head);
or am i wrong in this ?
sudip
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
