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This had already been superseded.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
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.
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
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 +-
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
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;
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
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;
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
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
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
-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 +-
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
13 matches
Mail list logo