> From: Jeroen Hofstee <jhofs...@victronenergy.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: m_can: fix boolreturn.cocci warnings
>
> Hello Simon,
>
> On 10/15/19 9:13 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 06:37:54AM +0000, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 10/15/19 7:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:04:28PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >>>> From: kbuild test robot <l...@intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c:783:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in
> >>>> function 'is_protocol_err' with return type bool
> >>>>
> >>>> Return statements in functions returning bool should use
> >>>> true/false instead of 1/0.
> >>>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolreturn.cocci
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixes: 46946163ac61 ("can: m_can: add support for handling
> >>>> arbitration error")
> >>>> CC: Pankaj Sharma <pankj.sha...@samsung.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <l...@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Pankaj-Sharma/can-
> m_can-add-support-for-handling-arbitration-error/20191014-193532
> >>>>
> >>>> m_can.c | 4 ++--
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c
> >>>> @@ -780,9 +780,9 @@ static inline bool is_lec_err(u32 psr)
> >>>> static inline bool is_protocol_err(u32 irqstatus)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X)
> >>>> - return 1;
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> else
> >>>> - return 0;
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static int m_can_handle_protocol_error(struct net_device *dev,
> >>>> u32 irqstatus)
> >>>>
> >>> <2c>
> >>> Perhaps the following is a nicer way to express this (completely
> >>> untested):
> >>>
> >>> return !!(irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X); </2c>
> >>
> >> Really...., !! for bool / _Bool types? why not simply:
> >>
> >> static inline bool is_protocol_err(u32 irqstatus)
> >> return irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X;
Thank you. Will Modify in v2.
> >> }
> > Good point, silly me.
>
>
> For clarity, I am commenting on the suggestion made by the tool, not the patch
> itself..
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeroen
