From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2744CC433F5 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1349205AbiDKSlq (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:41:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41644 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1349199AbiDKSlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:41:42 -0400 Received: from viti.kaiser.cx (viti.kaiser.cx [IPv6:2a01:238:43fe:e600:cd0c:bd4a:7a3:8e9f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1EB027B21 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:39:26 -0700 (PDT) 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> 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 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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