From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from viti.kaiser.cx (viti.kaiser.cx [85.214.81.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021B31840 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from martin by viti.kaiser.cx with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ndywY-0008Nb-GI; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:39:18 +0200 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:39:18 +0200 From: Martin Kaiser To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Larry Finger , Phillip Potter , Michael Straube , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] staging: r8188eu: don't set _SUCCESS again Message-ID: <20220411183918.4mw5x6tatslii7mg@viti.kaiser.cx> References: <20220409151557.207980-1-martin@kaiser.cx> <20220409151557.207980-3-martin@kaiser.cx> <20220411101834.GW3293@kadam> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220411101834.GW3293@kadam> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: Martin Kaiser Thus wrote Dan Carpenter (dan.carpenter@oracle.com): > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 05:15:51PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote: > > ret is initialized to _SUCCESS, there's no need to set it again. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser > I liked the original code better. Otherwise you wonder, is it > intentional to return success on this path. You're right. The original code is easier to understand. It's not obvious that this check should return _SUCCESS and the remaining ones return _FAIL. Greg, could you drop this patch or should I resend the series without this patch? Thanks, Martin