[PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl

Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
---
 drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
@@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
 		return -1;
 
 	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
-	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0) {
+
+	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0)
 		return -1;
-	}
+
 	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
 
 	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
 			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
-	if (i) {
+	if (i)
 		return 1;
-	}
-	return 0;
+	else
+		return 0;
 }
 
 /* deletes a vnic
-- 

[PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl

Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
---
 drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
@@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
 		return -1;
 
 	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
-	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) {
+
+	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0)
 		return -1;
-	}
+
 	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
 
 	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
 			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
-	if (i) {
+	if (i)
 		return 1;
-	}
-	return 0;
+	else
+		return 0;
 }
 
 /* deletes a vnic
-- 

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> 
> FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
>  		return -1;
>  
>  	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
> -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0) {
> +
> +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0)
>  		return -1;
> -	}
> +
why you are inserting new line here?

>  	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
>  
>  	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>  			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> -	if (i) {
> +	if (i)
>  		return 1;
> -	}
> -	return 0;
> +	else
> +		return 0;
No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> 
> FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
>  		return -1;
>  
>  	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
> -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) {
> +
> +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0)
>  		return -1;
> -	}
> +
why you are inserting new line here?

>  	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
>  
>  	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>  			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> -	if (i) {
> +	if (i)
>  		return 1;
> -	}
> -	return 0;
> +	else
> +		return 0;
No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

Thanks for review, my answers inline

On 01-07-2015 12:27, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
>>
>> FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
>>   		return -1;
>>
>>   	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
>> -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0) {
>> +
>> +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0)
>>   		return -1;
>> -	}
>> +
> why you are inserting new line here?
I did it so that its readable, will remove it if not required
>
>>   	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
>>
>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
>> -	if (i) {
>> +	if (i)
>>   		return 1;
>> -	}
>> -	return 0;
>> +	else
>> +		return 0;
> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I 
checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.

Otherwise the above code looks like this

if(i)
    return 1;
return 0;

>
> regards
> sudip
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

Thanks for review, my answers inline

On 01-07-2015 12:27, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
>>
>> FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
>> @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
>>   		return -1;
>>
>>   	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
>> -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) {
>> +
>> +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0)
>>   		return -1;
>> -	}
>> +
> why you are inserting new line here?
I did it so that its readable, will remove it if not required
>
>>   	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart *delparams)
>>
>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
>> -	if (i) {
>> +	if (i)
>>   		return 1;
>> -	}
>> -	return 0;
>> +	else
>> +		return 0;
> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I 
checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.

Otherwise the above code looks like this

if(i)
    return 1;
return 0;

>
> regards
> sudip
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sohny Thomas wrote:

> Thanks for review, my answers inline
>
> On 01-07-2015 12:27, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct
> > > spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
> > >   		return -1;
> > >
> > >   	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
> > > -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0) {
> > > +
> > > +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset == 0)
> > >   		return -1;
> > > -	}
> > > +
> > why you are inserting new line here?
> I did it so that its readable, will remove it if not required
> >
> > >   	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
> > >   	return 0;
> > >   }
> > > @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart
> > > *delparams)
> > >
> > >   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
> > >   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> > > -	if (i) {
> > > +	if (i)
> > >   		return 1;
> > > -	}
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +	else
> > > +		return 0;
> > No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> > required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>
> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>
> if(i)
>    return 1;
> return 0;

That looks fine.

I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
as a direct return at the end.

julia

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sohny Thomas wrote:

> Thanks for review, my answers inline
>
> On 01-07-2015 12:27, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 03:05:45AM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > FIX 2 unnecessary braces found by checkpatch.pl
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@zoho.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > index d5ad017..f3674de 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/virtpci/virtpci.c
> > > @@ -190,9 +190,10 @@ static int write_vbus_chp_info(struct
> > > spar_vbus_channel_protocol *chan,
> > >   		return -1;
> > >
> > >   	off = sizeof(struct channel_header) + chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset;
> > > -	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0) {
> > > +
> > > +	if (chan->hdr_info.chp_info_offset = 0)
> > >   		return -1;
> > > -	}
> > > +
> > why you are inserting new line here?
> I did it so that its readable, will remove it if not required
> >
> > >   	memcpy(((u8 *)(chan)) + off, info, sizeof(*info));
> > >   	return 0;
> > >   }
> > > @@ -484,10 +485,10 @@ static int delete_vhba(struct del_virt_guestpart
> > > *delparams)
> > >
> > >   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
> > >   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> > > -	if (i) {
> > > +	if (i)
> > >   		return 1;
> > > -	}
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +	else
> > > +		return 0;
> > No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> > required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>
> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>
> if(i)
>    return 1;
> return 0;

That looks fine.

I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
as a direct return at the end.

julia

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
<snip>
> >No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> >required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I
> checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
> 
> Otherwise the above code looks like this
> 
> if(i)
>    return 1;
> return 0;
you should update your tree. virtpci folder has been deleted from
unisys driver.
As you are using an old tree, maybe that explains why checkpatch is not
giving the error.

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
<snip>
> >No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> >required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I
> checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
> 
> Otherwise the above code looks like this
> 
> if(i)
>    return 1;
> return 0;
you should update your tree. virtpci folder has been deleted from
unisys driver.
As you are using an old tree, maybe that explains why checkpatch is not
giving the error.

regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 01:32 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
>>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
>>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
>> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I
>> checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>>
>> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>>
>> if(i)
>>    return 1;
>> return 0;
> you should update your tree. virtpci folder has been deleted from
> unisys driver.
> As you are using an old tree, maybe that explains why checkpatch is not
> giving the error.

This is from linux-stable branch and I updated  it just yesterday, so looks like the folders still there
> 
> regards
> sudip
> 

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 01:32 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
>>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
>>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
>> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I
>> checked and checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>>
>> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>>
>> if(i)
>>    return 1;
>> return 0;
> you should update your tree. virtpci folder has been deleted from
> unisys driver.
> As you are using an old tree, maybe that explains why checkpatch is not
> giving the error.

This is from linux-stable branch and I updated  it just yesterday, so looks like the folders still there
> 
> regards
> sudip
> 

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:04:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 July 2015 01:32 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> 
<snip>
> This is from linux-stable branch and I updated  it just yesterday, so looks like the folders still there
if you are sending patches for staging then you should work with
staging-testing tree.
 
regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

>>>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>>>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
>>>> -	if (i) {
>>>> +	if (i)
>>>>   		return 1;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		return 0;
>>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
>>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
>> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
>> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>>
>> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>>
>> if(i)
>>    return 1;
>> return 0;
> 
> That looks fine.
> 
> I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
> values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
> represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
> as a direct return at the end.
Here in this driver directory, return 1 means SUCCESS and return 0 means FAILURE
So you mean my code change is fine?
> 
> julia
> 

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:04:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 July 2015 01:32 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:06:48PM +0530, Sohny Thomas wrote:
> 
<snip>
> This is from linux-stable branch and I updated  it just yesterday, so looks like the folders still there
if you are sending patches for staging then you should work with
staging-testing tree.
 
regards
sudip

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Sohny Thomas]

>>>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
>>>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
>>>> -	if (i) {
>>>> +	if (i)
>>>>   		return 1;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> +	else
>>>> +		return 0;
>>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
>>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
>> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
>> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
>>
>> Otherwise the above code looks like this
>>
>> if(i)
>>    return 1;
>> return 0;
> 
> That looks fine.
> 
> I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
> values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
> represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
> as a direct return at the end.
Here in this driver directory, return 1 means SUCCESS and return 0 means FAILURE
So you mean my code change is fine?
> 
> julia
> 

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sohny Thomas wrote:

> >>>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
> >>>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> >>>> -	if (i) {
> >>>> +	if (i)
> >>>>   		return 1;
> >>>> -	}
> >>>> -	return 0;
> >>>> +	else
> >>>> +		return 0;
> >>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> >>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> >> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
> >> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the above code looks like this
> >>
> >> if(i)
> >>    return 1;
> >> return 0;
> >
> > That looks fine.
> >
> > I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
> > values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
> > represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
> > as a direct return at the end.
> Here in this driver directory, return 1 means SUCCESS and return 0 means FAILURE

What is -1?

> So you mean my code change is fine?

I think it would be best to have the success case that is not under an if.
So if (!i)
     return 0;
   return 1;

I guess some day the driver would need more normal error codes?

julia

Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sohny Thomas wrote:

> >>>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
> >>>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> >>>> -	if (i) {
> >>>> +	if (i)
> >>>>   		return 1;
> >>>> -	}
> >>>> -	return 0;
> >>>> +	else
> >>>> +		return 0;
> >>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> >>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> >> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
> >> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the above code looks like this
> >>
> >> if(i)
> >>    return 1;
> >> return 0;
> >
> > That looks fine.
> >
> > I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
> > values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
> > represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
> > as a direct return at the end.
> Here in this driver directory, return 1 means SUCCESS and return 0 means FAILURE

What is -1?

> So you mean my code change is fine?

I think it would be best to have the success case that is not under an if.
So if (!i)
     return 0;
   return 1;

I guess some day the driver would need more normal error codes?

julia