* Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.lo...@nexus-software.ie> wrote:
> On 19/02/15 10:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >>>- ret = iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >>>+ return iosf_mbi_read(QRK_MBI_UNIT_MM, QRK_MBI_MM_READ,
> >>> reg++, &imr->wmask);
> >>>- if (ret)
> >>>- return ret;
> >>>-
> >>>- return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>>
> >>
> >>This flow was a change asked for and supplied in review
> >>feedback for Andy Shevchenko so NAK to this patch.
> >
> >But this pattern:
> >
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> >makes very little sense. Why is it done?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
>
> Feedback at review was that it's more consistent with the
> code that comes before.
But that feedback makes very little sense. In C we don't
ever want to write:
if (ret)
return ret;
return 0;
Because we can return the fine value straight away:
return ret;
regardless of what comes before.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
