From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756071AbcIEMpK (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:45:10 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-06.nifty.com ([210.131.2.91]:55020 "EHLO conssluserg-06.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754802AbcIEMpD (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:45:03 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com u85CiWjU026862 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.161.171] MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1473058466-10831-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de> References: <1473058466-10831-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de> From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 21:44:31 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ubifs: compress lines for immediate return To: Heiko Schocher , Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Artem Bityutskiy , Adrian Hunter , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Heiko, Richard, 2016-09-05 15:54 GMT+09:00 Heiko Schocher : > From: Masahiro Yamada > > Cleanup the following code construct: > ret = expression; > if (ret) > return ret; > return 0; > > into a simple form: > return expression; > > From: Masahiro Yamada > posted on the U-Boot mailinglist. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada > Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher I am the author of the original patch in the U-Boot ML. Please notice it has not passed the review in U-Boot ML yet. Actually, I got some feedback against this patch. See http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/665199/ Stephan Warren suggested that we should not break code uniformity. After I considered it and took a closer look, I decided that we should not do these changes. This patch breaks the code uniformity. See blow: > /** > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/gc.c b/fs/ubifs/gc.c > index 821b348..88cd61d 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/gc.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/gc.c > @@ -297,10 +297,8 @@ static int sort_nodes(struct ubifs_info *c, struct ubifs_scan_leb *sleb, > err = dbg_check_data_nodes_order(c, &sleb->nodes); > if (err) > return err; > - err = dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); > - if (err) > - return err; > - return 0; > + > + return dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); > } Original code has uniformity here. err = dbg_check_data_nodes_order(c, &sleb->nodes); if (err) return err; err = dbg_check_nondata_nodes_order(c, nondata); if (err) return err; > /** > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c b/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > index ce89bdc..79a8e96 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > @@ -313,10 +313,7 @@ static int layout_cnodes(struct ubifs_info *c) > alen = ALIGN(offs, c->min_io_size); > upd_ltab(c, lnum, c->leb_size - alen, alen - offs); > dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 4, alen - offs); > - err = dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 3, alen); > - if (err) > - return err; > - return 0; > + return dbg_chk_lpt_sz(c, 3, alen); > We have dbg_chk_lpt_sz() call just above (its return value is ignored) So, returning the value of the last dbg_chk_lpt_sz() call seems a bit weird. So, I do not want to touch this. Heiko, If you want to post this patch, it is up to you. But, in that case, could you drop my Author and Signed-off-by, then send it as your patch, please? I do not feel comfortable with my authorship for what I decided to not do. I will retract my original patch from the U-Boot ML, too. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada