On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:18:26AM -0200, Eduardo Barretto wrote: > Checkpatch was complaining about the else statement because the if statement > had a return '1' call. Taking a look at the function which this else > statement belongs, you can see that it has an switch case statement. > The main idea of the function is to return '1' if you get into any of the > cases (including the default case where the "problematic" if/else statement > is declared). > If any of the cases is not sufficient the function should return '0', so the > else statement that checkpath was complaining could be removed, and what was > done inside this else statement can be done outside the switch case statement > and then we return '0'. > This way we have a cleaner code and no checkpatch error complaints.
Verbose is good, but please wrap your lines at 72 columns. And this might have been a bit too verbose :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
