Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return

From	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return
Date	2017-02-28 21:10 +0100
Message-ID	<tfWfT-NX-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <tfy3T-TW-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfzMl-29y-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfAp4-2r5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfVWy-rZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tfVWx-rZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 00:41 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
> > <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:
> > > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch warning that else is not generally
> > > > > useful after a break or return.
> > > > > This was done using Coccinelle:
> > > > > @@
> > > > > expression e2;
> > > > > statement s1;
> > > > > @@
> > > > > if(e2) { ... return ...; }
> > > > > -else
> > > > >          s1
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -26,30 +26,26 @@ __dev16 gdm_cpu_to_dev16(struct gdm_endian *ed, u16 x)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       if (ed->dev_ed == ENDIANNESS_LITTLE)
> > > > >               return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_le16(x);
> > > > > -     else
> > > > > -             return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > > > +     return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > >
> > > > again, not a checkpatch message for any of the
> > > > suggested modified hunks.
> > > >
> >
> > I am not getting what's the problem in removing else or may be I
> > am wrong you just want to say that I should change the commit message.
>
> 2 things:
>
> 1: The commit message is incorrect.
> 2: This form is fundamentally OK:
>
> 	if (foo)
> 		return bar;
> 	else
> 		return baz;
>
>
> So I think this patch is not good.

I agree in this case.  The two branches are quite parallel.  In some of
the other patches, the if was looking for the absence of some resource or
the failure of something, so there was a clear distinction between one
branch being cleanup on failure and the other branch being the continuing
successful computation, even if it is just to return a success indicator.

julia

Thread

[PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return simran singhal <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 19:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after  return Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-02-27 21:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 21:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after  return Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-02-28 20:50 +0100
        Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove  unnecessary else after return Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2017-02-28 21:10 +0100
      Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove  unnecessary else after return Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2017-02-28 20:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 21:20 +0100

csiph-web