On 2018-08-16 08:02, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 2018-08-15 05:43, no-re...@patchew.org wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for >>> more information: >> >> [...] >> >>> === OUTPUT BEGIN === >>> Checking PATCH 1/31: block: Use bdrv_refresh_filename() to pull... >>> Checking PATCH 2/31: block: Use children list in bdrv_refresh_filename... >>> Checking PATCH 3/31: block: Skip implicit nodes for filename info... >>> Checking PATCH 4/31: block: Add BDS.auto_backing_file... >>> Checking PATCH 5/31: block: Respect backing bs in bdrv_refresh_filename... >>> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required >>> #46: FILE: block.c:5192: >>> + return (bs->auto_backing_file[0] != '\0'); >>> >>> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 136 lines checked >> >> Sure, but I'd hate you personally if you omitted them. > > @@ > expression E; > @@ > - return (E); > + return E; > > You're welcome!
Well, I really don't like not putting parenthesis when returning something that is not an identifier or a function call. In fact, before I drop the parentheses, I'd drop the "!= '\0'", because that is optional, too. (And then I could drop the parentheses anyway.) Or write it with an explicit if-else (return true - return false). Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
