Hi Heiko, Richard,
2016-09-05 15:54 GMT+09:00 Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de>: > From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > > Cleanup the following code construct: > ret = expression; > if (ret) > return ret; > return 0; > > into a simple form: > return expression; > > From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > posted on the U-Boot mailinglist. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> I am the author of the original patch in the U-Boot ML. Please notice it has not passed the review in U-Boot ML yet. Actually, I got some feedback against this patch. See http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/665199/ Stephan Warren suggested that we should not break code uniformity. After I considered it and took a closer look, I decided that we should not do these changes. This patch breaks the code uniformity. See blow: > /** > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/gc.c b/fs/ubifs/gc.c > index 821b348..88cd61d 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/gc.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/gc.c > @@ -297,10 +297,8 @@ static int sort_nodes(struct ubifs_info *c, struct > ubifs_scan_leb *sleb, > err = dbg_check_data_nodes_order(c, &sleb->nodes); > if (err) > return err; > - err = dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); > - if (err) > - return err; > - return 0; > + > + return dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); > } Original code has uniformity here. err = dbg_check_data_nodes_order(c, &sleb->nodes); if (err) return err; err = dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); if (err) return err; > /** > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c b/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > index ce89bdc..79a8e96 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > @@ -313,10 +313,7 @@ static int layout_cnodes(struct ubifs_info *c) > alen = ALIGN(offs, c->min_io_size); > upd_ltab(c, lnum, c->leb_size - alen, alen - offs); > dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 4, alen - offs); > - err = dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 3, alen); > - if (err) > - return err; > - return 0; > + return dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 3, alen); > We have dbg_chk_lpt_sz() call just above (its return value is ignored) So, returning the value of the last dbg_chk_lpt_sz() call seems a bit weird. So, I do not want to touch this. Heiko, If you want to post this patch, it is up to you. But, in that case, could you drop my Author and Signed-off-by, then send it as your patch, please? I do not feel comfortable with my authorship for what I decided to not do. I will retract my original patch from the U-Boot ML, too. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada