Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 10:11 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:29:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > 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: > > > > Ah. > > > > Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead > > > > return ret ? 0 : 1; > > or > > return !ret; > > > > You still have to handle the negative. > > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > return !ret; Of course. Apologies for not being clear. I meant using that ?: or ! after the first if (ret < 0) as you wrote. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:29:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > 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: > > Ah. > > Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead > > return ret ? 0 : 1; > or > return !ret; > You still have to handle the negative. if (ret < 0) return ret; return !ret; regards, dan carpenter -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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. regards, dan carpenter -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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
>
Fair enough, but if you wanted to go clean the returns up further then
you could. Remove all the "!= 0" bits.
> @@ -3125,11 +3125,11 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
>
> ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL);
> if (pbpctl_dev->bp_i80)
> - return ((ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
> + return (ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
The double negative just makes the code not as not confusing as it could
be. Simpler:
return (ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) ? 0 : 1;
>
> if ((pbpctl_dev->bp_caps & BP_CAP)) {
> if (pbpctl_dev->bp_ext_ver >= PXG2BPI_VER) {
> - return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
> + return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
> BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ==
> - BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
> + BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
These super long lines would be better if we introduced a temporary
variable.
reg = read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR);
return (reg & BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) == BYPASS_FLAG_MASK;
BYPASS_FLAG_MASK is poorly named. It's actually just a bit or a flag
and not a mask, so it could be renamed.
reg = read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR);
return (reg & BP_BYPASS_FLAG) ? 1 : 0;
Which is way simpler than the original and only 2 lines long instead of
4. I don't know that "BP_" is the right prefix... BYPASS_FLAG is too
generic.
> @@ -4730,7 +4730,7 @@ int get_disc_pwup_fn(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
> return -1;
>
> ret = default_pwron_disc_status(pbpctl_dev);
> - return (ret == 0 ? 1 : (ret < 0 ? BP_NOT_CAP : 0));
> + return ret == 0 ? 1 : (ret < 0 ? BP_NOT_CAP : 0);
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.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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/
[PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch tool in
bpctl_mod.c
Signed-off-by: Will Tange
---
drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c | 122 ++--
1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
index 39dc92a..ffd5d48 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
@@ -3125,11 +3125,11 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL);
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_i80)
- return ((ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_540) {
ctrl = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP);
- return ((ctrl & BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl & BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
}
@@ -3150,8 +3150,8 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
}
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_10g9) {
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP) &
-BP10G_SDP3_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP) &
+BP10G_SDP3_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else if (pbpctl_dev->bp_fiber5) {
ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL_EXT);
@@ -3186,10 +3186,10 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_540) {
ctrl = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP);
- return ((ctrl & BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl & BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
- return ((ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN0) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl & BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN0) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else
return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP) &
BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
@@ -3204,8 +3204,8 @@ static int bp_force_link_status(struct bpctl_dev
*pbpctl_dev)
if (DBI_IF_SERIES(pbpctl_dev->subdevice)) {
if ((pbpctl_dev->bp_10g) || (pbpctl_dev->bp_10g9)) {
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP) &
-BP10G_SDP1_DIR) != 0 ? 1 : 0);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP) &
+BP10G_SDP1_DIR) != 0 ? 1 : 0;
}
}
@@ -3251,9 +3251,9 @@ int bypass_flag_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if ((pbpctl_dev->bp_caps & BP_CAP)) {
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_ext_ver >= PXG2BPI_VER) {
- return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
+ return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ==
-BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
+BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
return BP_NOT_CAP;
@@ -3298,8 +3298,8 @@ int bypass_off_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_caps & BP_CAP) {
if (pbpctl_dev->bp_ext_ver >= PXG2BPI_VER) {
- return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
- BYPASS_OFF_MASK) == BYPASS_OFF_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
+ return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR)) &
+ BYPASS_OFF_MASK) == BYPASS_OFF_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
return BP_NOT_CAP;
@@ -,18 +,18 @@ static int bypass_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
ctrl_ext = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL);
BP10G_WRITE_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL,
(ctrl_ext | BP10G_I2C_CLK_OUT));
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL) &
-BP10G_I2C_CLK_IN) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL) &
+BP10G_I2C_CLK_IN) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else if (pbpctl_dev->bp_540) {
- return (((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, ESDP)) &
-BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, ESDP)) &
+BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
else if ((pbpctl_dev->bp_fiber5)
||
[PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch tool in
bpctl_mod.c
Signed-off-by: Will Tange bh3...@gmail.com
---
drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c | 122 ++--
1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
index 39dc92a..ffd5d48 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/silicom/bpctl_mod.c
@@ -3125,11 +3125,11 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL);
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_i80)
- return ((ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_540) {
ctrl = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP);
- return ((ctrl BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
}
@@ -3150,8 +3150,8 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
}
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_10g9) {
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP)
-BP10G_SDP3_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP)
+BP10G_SDP3_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else if (pbpctl_dev-bp_fiber5) {
ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL_EXT);
@@ -3186,10 +3186,10 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_540) {
ctrl = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP);
- return ((ctrl BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl BP10G_SDP1_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
- return ((ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN0) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN0) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else
return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP)
BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
@@ -3204,8 +3204,8 @@ static int bp_force_link_status(struct bpctl_dev
*pbpctl_dev)
if (DBI_IF_SERIES(pbpctl_dev-subdevice)) {
if ((pbpctl_dev-bp_10g) || (pbpctl_dev-bp_10g9)) {
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP)
-BP10G_SDP1_DIR) != 0 ? 1 : 0);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, ESDP)
+BP10G_SDP1_DIR) != 0 ? 1 : 0;
}
}
@@ -3251,9 +3251,9 @@ int bypass_flag_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if ((pbpctl_dev-bp_caps BP_CAP)) {
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_ext_ver = PXG2BPI_VER) {
- return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
+ return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ==
-BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
+BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
return BP_NOT_CAP;
@@ -3298,8 +3298,8 @@ int bypass_off_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_caps BP_CAP) {
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_ext_ver = PXG2BPI_VER) {
- return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
- BYPASS_OFF_MASK) == BYPASS_OFF_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
+ return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
+ BYPASS_OFF_MASK) == BYPASS_OFF_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
return BP_NOT_CAP;
@@ -,18 +,18 @@ static int bypass_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
ctrl_ext = BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL);
BP10G_WRITE_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL,
(ctrl_ext | BP10G_I2C_CLK_OUT));
- return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL)
-BP10G_I2C_CLK_IN) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, I2CCTL)
+BP10G_I2C_CLK_IN) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
} else if (pbpctl_dev-bp_540) {
- return (((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, ESDP))
-BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return ((BP10G_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev_b, ESDP))
+BP10G_SDP0_DATA) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
}
else if ((pbpctl_dev-bp_fiber5)
|| (pbpctl_dev-bp_i80)) {
-
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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
Fair enough, but if you wanted to go clean the returns up further then
you could. Remove all the != 0 bits.
@@ -3125,11 +3125,11 @@ static int tx_status(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
ctrl = BPCTL_READ_REG(pbpctl_dev, CTRL);
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_i80)
- return ((ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1);
+ return (ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) != 0 ? 0 : 1;
The double negative just makes the code not as not confusing as it could
be. Simpler:
return (ctrl BPCTLI_CTRL_SWDPIN1) ? 0 : 1;
if ((pbpctl_dev-bp_caps BP_CAP)) {
if (pbpctl_dev-bp_ext_ver = PXG2BPI_VER) {
- return read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
+ return (((read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR))
BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ==
- BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0);
+ BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) ? 1 : 0;
These super long lines would be better if we introduced a temporary
variable.
reg = read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR);
return (reg BYPASS_FLAG_MASK) == BYPASS_FLAG_MASK;
BYPASS_FLAG_MASK is poorly named. It's actually just a bit or a flag
and not a mask, so it could be renamed.
reg = read_reg(pbpctl_dev, STATUS_REG_ADDR);
return (reg BP_BYPASS_FLAG) ? 1 : 0;
Which is way simpler than the original and only 2 lines long instead of
4. I don't know that BP_ is the right prefix... BYPASS_FLAG is too
generic.
@@ -4730,7 +4730,7 @@ int get_disc_pwup_fn(struct bpctl_dev *pbpctl_dev)
return -1;
ret = default_pwron_disc_status(pbpctl_dev);
- return (ret == 0 ? 1 : (ret 0 ? BP_NOT_CAP : 0));
+ return ret == 0 ? 1 : (ret 0 ? BP_NOT_CAP : 0);
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.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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. regards, dan carpenter -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:29:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: 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: Ah. Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead return ret ? 0 : 1; or return !ret; You still have to handle the negative. if (ret 0) return ret; return !ret; regards, dan carpenter -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 10:11 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:29:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: 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: Ah. Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead return ret ? 0 : 1; or return !ret; You still have to handle the negative. if (ret 0) return ret; return !ret; Of course. Apologies for not being clear. I meant using that ?: or ! after the first if (ret 0) as you wrote. -- 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/
