Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi Stefano,

2016-09-06 18:25 GMT+09:00 Stefano Babic :

>
> Nothing against, but it looks to me just a different and allowed coding
> style - where is the advantages of this ?
>

This had already been superseded.
Please check v3, where I mostly transformed
simple wrapper functions only.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi Stephen,

2016-09-07 1:09 GMT+09:00 Stephen Warren :

>>> All child function calls are structured the same, so someone reading the
>>> code will always see the same structure irrespective of where in a
>>> function
>>> a child function is called. This gives uniformity. This also yields a few
>>> maintenance advantages below, and helps keep all code uniform even if any
>>> of
>>> the maintenance operations below have been applied to some functions and
>>> aren't needed in others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you think I ran a semantic patch with Coccinelle
>> and then sent it blindly?
>>
>> No, this patch passed my eyes' check, at least.
>>
>> Please notice this patch did not transform
>> the following function in arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clk_synthesizer.c
>
> ...
>
> The patch description clearly stated that the patch was purely the result of
> applying the Coccinelle script. If there were exceptions or other edits,
> they should have been explicitly mentioned too.

Right.
The git-log implied a semantic patch, but I did not mention that
I sent the output of Coccinelle as is.

Actually, I cherry-picked reasonable hunks.

Coccinelle may sometimes do false positive jobs (or undesirable output
like this case),
so I think "Coccinelle + checking by eyes" is a good practice.


I dropped a semantic patch snippet from v3 git-log.



>> If we start to consider things that may happen or may not happen,
>> we end up with adding redundancy all the time.
>>
>> Are you positive or negative for the following hunk?
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>> index f621f14..b27a6af 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
>>> @@ -788,11 +788,7 @@ static int fsl_elbc_chip_init(int devnum, u8 *addr)
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> -   ret = nand_register(devnum, mtd);
>>> -   if (ret)
>>> -   return ret;
>>> -
>>> -   return 0;
>>> +   return nand_register(devnum, mtd);
>>>  }
>
>
> I'd probably tend not to do that particular conversion, for consistency with
> the immediately preceding nand_scan_tail() case. Still, this one isn't such
> an obvious call so I wouldn't feel particularly strongly about it,
> especially as it isn't a driver I work on.
>
>> I think probe/init function can return a value
>> of register function directly, from my best common sense.
>>
>> This change will lose 2)
>> in case fsl_elbc_chip_init() fails to do nand_register, though.

OK.  I dropped those changes in v2.

(I still personally believe "return *_register();" is good coding style, though.
This might be a matter of preference...)


In v3, I only fixed drivers/video/vidconsole-uclass.c
because I thought it is simple enough.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/666560/

and it was acked by Anatolij.




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Stephen Warren]

On 09/03/2016 05:38 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

2016-09-03 2:15 GMT+09:00 Stephen Warren :

On 09/02/2016 04:36 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:


  -ret = expression;
  -if (ret)
  -return ret;
  -return 0;
  +return expression;



I disagree with this change if applied blindly; I think both coding styles
have their merit depending on the semantic context.

In the case of a simple wrapper function that just calls another with
different arguments, directly returning the result from the called function
make sense. For example:


int device_bind(struct udevice *parent, const struct driver *drv,
const char *name, void *platdata, int of_offset,
struct udevice **devp)
{
return device_bind_common(parent, drv, name, platdata, 0,
of_offset, 0,
  devp);
}


However, where the top-level function is more complex, especially where it
calls multiple functions in its body, I think it's best to use the exact
same style to call all functions in the top-level body, and just "return 0"
separately at the end. For example:


static int tegra186_bpmp_bind(struct udevice *dev)
{
int ret;
struct udevice *child;

debug("%s(dev=%p)\n", __func__, dev);

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_clk",
"tegra186_clk",
 dev->of_offset, );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_reset",
 "tegra186_reset", dev->of_offset,
 );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_power_domain",
 "tegra186_power_domain",
 dev->of_offset, );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
if (ret)
return ret;

return 0;
}


All child function calls are structured the same, so someone reading the
code will always see the same structure irrespective of where in a function
a child function is called. This gives uniformity. This also yields a few
maintenance advantages below, and helps keep all code uniform even if any of
the maintenance operations below have been applied to some functions and
aren't needed in others.



Did you think I ran a semantic patch with Coccinelle
and then sent it blindly?

No, this patch passed my eyes' check, at least.

Please notice this patch did not transform
the following function in arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clk_synthesizer.c

...

The patch description clearly stated that the patch was purely the 
result of applying the Coccinelle script. If there were exceptions or 
other edits, they should have been explicitly mentioned too.



1)

If tegra186_bpmp_bind() were modified to call an additional function in its
body, the diff for that addition would look identical no matter whether the
new call was added at the start/middle/end of the body. We wouldn't ever
have to do something like:

-   return dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
+   ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
+   if (ret)
+   return ret;

... which is an edit to a piece of code that's unrelated to the code being
added, and thus makes the patch more confusing.

2)

There's always an obvious place to put any debug()/error() invocations, or
translate return values; inside the if (ret) body. There's only one way for
the code to look so it doesn't change based on what exactly we do with the
return value.

3)

If we add the need for cleanup logic in the failure case, we can just
blindly change "return ret" to "goto fail" without re-structuring code.


I am not sure if 2) and 3) are realistic.


Well, they're both based on my having seen those exact things happen...


If we start to consider things that may happen or may not happen,
we end up with adding redundancy all the time.

Are you positive or negative for the following hunk?


diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
index f621f14..b27a6af 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
@@ -788,11 +788,7 @@ static int fsl_elbc_chip_init(int devnum, u8 *addr)
if (ret)
return ret;

-   ret = nand_register(devnum, mtd);
-   if (ret)
-   return ret;
-
-   return 0;
+   return nand_register(devnum, mtd);
 }


I'd probably tend not to do that particular conversion, for consistency 
with the immediately preceding nand_scan_tail() case. Still, this one 
isn't such an obvious call so I wouldn't feel particularly strongly 
about it, especially as it isn't a driver I work on.



I think probe/init function can return a value
of register function directly, from my best common sense.

This change will lose 2)
in case fsl_elbc_chip_init() fails to do nand_register, though.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Stefano Babic]

Hi Masahiro,

On 02/09/2016 12:36, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>   -ret = expression;
>   -if (ret)
>   -return ret;
>   -return 0;
>   +return expression;
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm235xx/clk-bsc.c   |  6 +-
>  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm281xx/clk-bsc.c   |  6 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3288/sdram_rk3288.c| 11 --
>  arch/arm/mach-uniphier/dram/umc-ld20.c  |  6 +-
>  arch/powerpc/lib/bootm.c|  6 +-
>  arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c  |  8 +--
>  arch/x86/cpu/broadwell/cpu.c|  6 +-
>  arch/x86/cpu/broadwell/sata.c   |  7 +--
>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/bd82x6x.c|  6 +-
>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/cpu.c|  6 +-
>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/gma.c|  6 +-
>  arch/x86/cpu/ivybridge/ivybridge.c  |  8 +--
>  arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c|  8 +--
>  arch/x86/cpu/queensbay/tnc.c| 14 ++---
>  board/compulab/cm_fx6/cm_fx6.c  |  6 +-
>  board/freescale/common/fsl_validate.c   |  6 +-
>  board/freescale/mx6qsabreauto/mx6qsabreauto.c   | 11 +++---
>  board/freescale/mx6sxsabreauto/mx6sxsabreauto.c | 11 +++---
>  board/keymile/km_arm/fpga_config.c  | 14 ++---
>  board/kosagi/novena/novena.c|  6 +-
>  board/samsung/goni/goni.c   |  8 +--
>  board/ti/common/board_detect.c  |  6 +-
>  drivers/adc/adc-uclass.c| 12 ++-
>  drivers/core/root.c | 12 ++-
>  drivers/dfu/dfu_sf.c|  8 ++-
>  drivers/gpio/74x164_gpio.c  |  7 +--
>  drivers/gpio/axp_gpio.c |  6 +-
>  drivers/misc/cros_ec.c  |  6 +-
>  drivers/misc/pca9551_led.c  | 13 ++--
>  drivers/misc/tegra186_bpmp.c|  6 +-
>  drivers/mmc/atmel_sdhci.c   |  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/davinci_mmc.c   |  6 +-
>  drivers/mmc/exynos_dw_mmc.c |  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/mmc-uclass.c|  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/mmc_boot.c  | 28 
> +++--
>  drivers/mmc/mmc_legacy.c|  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/msm_sdhci.c |  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/mxcmmc.c|  6 +-
>  drivers/mmc/pxa_mmc_gen.c   | 21 +++
>  drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c   |  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/rockchip_sdhci.c|  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/sandbox_mmc.c   |  7 +--
>  drivers/mmc/zynq_sdhci.c|  7 +--
>  drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c|  6 +-
>  drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_ifc_nand.c |  5 +
>  drivers/mtd/nand/tegra_nand.c   |  6 +-
>  drivers/mtd/nand/vf610_nfc.c|  6 +-
>  drivers/mtd/ubi/attach.c| 14 -
>  drivers/net/fm/eth.c|  6 +-
>  drivers/net/mvpp2.c | 16 --
>  drivers/net/phy/mv88e6352.c |  6 +-
>  drivers/net/xilinx_emaclite.c   |  7 +--
>  drivers/pci/pcie_imx.c  | 12 ++-
>  drivers/power/axp809.c  |  8 +--
>  drivers/rtc/i2c_rtc_emul.c  | 13 ++--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-atmel.c   |  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-fsl.c |  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-marvell.c |  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-mx6.c |  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c |  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/ehci-zynq.c|  8 +--
>  drivers/usb/host/xhci-fsl.c |  7 +--
>  drivers/usb/ulpi/ulpi.c |  6 +-
>  drivers/video/bridge/ptn3460.c  |  8 +--
>  drivers/video/rockchip/rk_edp.c |  6 +-
>  drivers/video/simple_panel.c|  7 +--
>  drivers/video/tegra124/display.c|  8 +--
>  drivers/video/vidconsole-uclass.c   |  7 +--
>  fs/ubifs/budget.c   |  7 ++-
>  fs/ubifs/gc.c   |  5 +
>  fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c   |  5 +
>  fs/ubifs/ubifs.c|  6 +-
>  lib/libfdt/fdt_rw.c |  6 +-
>  lib/rsa/rsa-checksum.c 

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Heiko Schocher]

Hello Masahiro,

Am 02.09.2016 um 12:36 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:

   -ret = expression;
   -if (ret)
   -return ret;
   -return 0;
   +return expression;

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
---


[...]

  fs/ubifs/budget.c   |  7 ++-
  fs/ubifs/gc.c   |  5 +
  fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c   |  5 +
  fs/ubifs/ubifs.c|  6 +-


Thanks!

Acked-by: Heiko Schocher 

As the ubifs code comes from linux, I posted the parts for the
ubifs on the linux-mtd mailinglist.

bye,
Heiko
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/04/2016 01:38 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2016-09-02 23:12 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
>> On 09/02/2016 03:09 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> 2016-09-02 20:58 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
 On 09/02/2016 12:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>   -ret = expression;
>   -if (ret)
>   -return ret;
>   -return 0;
>   +return expression;
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
> ---

 The thing I miss in the commit message is -- why is this change
 beneficial/needed ?

>>>
>>> I thought the benefit was apparent.
>>>
>>> Wasn't it to you?
>>
>> Nope, please explain.
>>
> 
> This is a cleanup patch; it removes
> unneeded variable assignments, if conditionals.

This should be in the commit message.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Masahiro Yamada]

2016-09-03 2:15 GMT+09:00 Stephen Warren :
> On 09/02/2016 04:36 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>
>>   -ret = expression;
>>   -if (ret)
>>   -return ret;
>>   -return 0;
>>   +return expression;
>
>
> I disagree with this change if applied blindly; I think both coding styles
> have their merit depending on the semantic context.
>
> In the case of a simple wrapper function that just calls another with
> different arguments, directly returning the result from the called function
> make sense. For example:
>
>> int device_bind(struct udevice *parent, const struct driver *drv,
>> const char *name, void *platdata, int of_offset,
>> struct udevice **devp)
>> {
>> return device_bind_common(parent, drv, name, platdata, 0,
>> of_offset, 0,
>>   devp);
>> }
>
>
> However, where the top-level function is more complex, especially where it
> calls multiple functions in its body, I think it's best to use the exact
> same style to call all functions in the top-level body, and just "return 0"
> separately at the end. For example:
>
>> static int tegra186_bpmp_bind(struct udevice *dev)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> struct udevice *child;
>>
>> debug("%s(dev=%p)\n", __func__, dev);
>>
>> ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_clk",
>> "tegra186_clk",
>>  dev->of_offset, );
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_reset",
>>  "tegra186_reset", dev->of_offset,
>>  );
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_power_domain",
>>  "tegra186_power_domain",
>>  dev->of_offset, );
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>
>
> All child function calls are structured the same, so someone reading the
> code will always see the same structure irrespective of where in a function
> a child function is called. This gives uniformity. This also yields a few
> maintenance advantages below, and helps keep all code uniform even if any of
> the maintenance operations below have been applied to some functions and
> aren't needed in others.





Did you think I ran a semantic patch with Coccinelle
and then sent it blindly?

No, this patch passed my eyes' check, at least.


Please notice this patch did not transform
the following function in arch/arm/cpu/armv7/am33xx/clk_synthesizer.c


int setup_clock_synthesizer(struct clk_synth *data)
{
int rc;
uint8_t val;

rc =  i2c_probe(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_I2C_ADDR);
if (rc) {
printf("i2c probe failed at address 0x%x\n",
   CLK_SYNTHESIZER_I2C_ADDR);
return rc;
}

rc = clk_synthesizer_reg_read(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_ID_REG, );
if (val != data->id)
return rc;

/* Crystal Load capacitor selection */
rc = clk_synthesizer_reg_write(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_XCSEL, data->capacitor);
if (rc)
return rc;
rc = clk_synthesizer_reg_write(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_MUX_REG, data->mux);
if (rc)
return rc;
rc = clk_synthesizer_reg_write(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_PDIV2_REG, data->pdiv2);
if (rc)
return rc;
rc = clk_synthesizer_reg_write(CLK_SYNTHESIZER_PDIV3_REG, data->pdiv3);
if (rc)
return rc;

return 0;
}



We can transform this function if we like
but it would badly break the uniformity.
So, I did not.

So, I agree your statement to some extent.


I guess the matter is, where we should draw a line.
What is uniform and what is not uniform?



If you want to stick to the safest side,
a semantic patch like follows would do the job.

 @@
 type t;
 expression e;
 identifier ret;
 @@
 -   t ret;
 -   ret = e;
 -   if (ret)
 -   return ret;
 -   return 0;
 +
 +   return e;



> 1)
>
> If tegra186_bpmp_bind() were modified to call an additional function in its
> body, the diff for that addition would look identical no matter whether the
> new call was added at the start/middle/end of the body. We wouldn't ever
> have to do something like:
>
> -   return dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
> +   ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
> +   if (ret)
> +   return ret;
>
> ... which is an edit to a piece of code that's unrelated to the code being
> added, and thus makes the patch more confusing.
>
> 2)
>
> There's always an obvious place to put any debug()/error() invocations, or
> translate return values; inside the if (ret) body. There's only one way for
> the code to look so it doesn't change based on 

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Masahiro Yamada]

2016-09-02 23:12 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
> On 09/02/2016 03:09 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> 2016-09-02 20:58 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
>>> On 09/02/2016 12:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
   -ret = expression;
   -if (ret)
   -return ret;
   -return 0;
   +return expression;

 Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
 ---
>>>
>>> The thing I miss in the commit message is -- why is this change
>>> beneficial/needed ?
>>>
>>
>> I thought the benefit was apparent.
>>
>> Wasn't it to you?
>
> Nope, please explain.
>

This is a cleanup patch; it removes
unneeded variable assignments, if conditionals.



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Stephen Warren]

On 09/02/2016 04:36 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

  -ret = expression;
  -if (ret)
  -return ret;
  -return 0;
  +return expression;


I disagree with this change if applied blindly; I think both coding 
styles have their merit depending on the semantic context.


In the case of a simple wrapper function that just calls another with 
different arguments, directly returning the result from the called 
function make sense. For example:



int device_bind(struct udevice *parent, const struct driver *drv,
const char *name, void *platdata, int of_offset,
struct udevice **devp)
{
return device_bind_common(parent, drv, name, platdata, 0, of_offset, 0,
  devp);
}


However, where the top-level function is more complex, especially where 
it calls multiple functions in its body, I think it's best to use the 
exact same style to call all functions in the top-level body, and just 
"return 0" separately at the end. For example:



static int tegra186_bpmp_bind(struct udevice *dev)
{
int ret;
struct udevice *child;

debug("%s(dev=%p)\n", __func__, dev);

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_clk", "tegra186_clk",
 dev->of_offset, );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_reset",
 "tegra186_reset", dev->of_offset,
 );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = device_bind_driver_to_node(dev, "tegra186_power_domain",
 "tegra186_power_domain",
 dev->of_offset, );
if (ret)
return ret;

ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
if (ret)
return ret;

return 0;
}


All child function calls are structured the same, so someone reading the 
code will always see the same structure irrespective of where in a 
function a child function is called. This gives uniformity. This also 
yields a few maintenance advantages below, and helps keep all code 
uniform even if any of the maintenance operations below have been 
applied to some functions and aren't needed in others.


1)

If tegra186_bpmp_bind() were modified to call an additional function in 
its body, the diff for that addition would look identical no matter 
whether the new call was added at the start/middle/end of the body. We 
wouldn't ever have to do something like:


-   return dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
+   ret = dm_scan_fdt_dev(dev);
+   if (ret)
+   return ret;

... which is an edit to a piece of code that's unrelated to the code 
being added, and thus makes the patch more confusing.


2)

There's always an obvious place to put any debug()/error() invocations, 
or translate return values; inside the if (ret) body. There's only one 
way for the code to look so it doesn't change based on what exactly we 
do with the return value.


3)

If we add the need for cleanup logic in the failure case, we can just 
blindly change "return ret" to "goto fail" without re-structuring code.


___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Masahiro Yamada]

2016-09-02 20:58 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
> On 09/02/2016 12:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>   -ret = expression;
>>   -if (ret)
>>   -return ret;
>>   -return 0;
>>   +return expression;
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
>> ---
>
> The thing I miss in the commit message is -- why is this change
> beneficial/needed ?
>

I thought the benefit was apparent.

Wasn't it to you?



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/02/2016 03:09 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2016-09-02 20:58 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut :
>> On 09/02/2016 12:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>   -ret = expression;
>>>   -if (ret)
>>>   -return ret;
>>>   -return 0;
>>>   +return expression;
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
>>> ---
>>
>> The thing I miss in the commit message is -- why is this change
>> beneficial/needed ?
>>
> 
> I thought the benefit was apparent.
> 
> Wasn't it to you?

Nope, please explain.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] treewide: compress lines for immediate return

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/02/2016 12:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>   -ret = expression;
>   -if (ret)
>   -return ret;
>   -return 0;
>   +return expression;
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada 
> ---

The thing I miss in the commit message is -- why is this change
beneficial/needed ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot