On 2018-08-16 08:02, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2018-08-15 05:43, no-reply@patchew.org wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
>>> more information:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
>>> Checking PATCH 1/31: block: Use bdrv_refresh_filename() to pull...
>>> Checking PATCH 2/31: block: Use children list in bdrv_refresh_filename...
>>> Checking PATCH 3/31: block: Skip implicit nodes for filename info...
>>> Checking PATCH 4/31: block: Add BDS.auto_backing_file...
>>> Checking PATCH 5/31: block: Respect backing bs in bdrv_refresh_filename...
>>> ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
>>> #46: FILE: block.c:5192:
>>> +        return (bs->auto_backing_file[0] != '\0');
>>>
>>> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 136 lines checked
>>
>> Sure, but I'd hate you personally if you omitted them.
> 
> @@
> expression E;
> @@
> -    return (E);
> +    return E;
> 
> You're welcome!

Well, I really don't like not putting parenthesis when returning
something that is not an identifier or a function call.

In fact, before I drop the parentheses, I'd drop the "!= '\0'", because
that is optional, too.  (And then I could drop the parentheses anyway.)

Or write it with an explicit if-else (return true - return false).

Max