On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 02:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:09:15PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 01:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:23:53PM +0100, Will Tange wrote:
> > > > Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch
> > > > tool in bpctl_mod.c
> > []
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > return BP_NOT_CAP;
> > > if (ret == 0)
> > > return 1;
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > More lines, but simpler to understand than the original.
> > >
> > > Think of checkpatch.pl as a pointer to bad code and not that we just
> > > have to silence checkpatch and move on.
> >
> > So true.
> >
> > If 0 is the expected ret value and 1 is the
> > expected function return for not-errored use,
> > I suggest changing the last bit to:
> >
> > if (ret < 0)
> > return BP_NOT_CAP;
> > else if (ret > 0)
> > return 0;
> >
> > return 1;
> >
> > so that the error conditions are done first
> > and the normal return is at the bottom of
> > the function.
>
> In this function, -1 means fail, 1 means "on" and 0 means "off". I
> sorted them from lowest to highest: negative, zero and greater than
> zero.
Ah.
Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead
return ret ? 0 : 1;
or
return !ret;
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
