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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421F5C4332B for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251B964F0E for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238852AbhCOOxb (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:53:31 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0121.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.121]:60914 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237292AbhCOOnI (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:43:08 -0400 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42245182CF66F; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:43:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: spot91_0904ad72772d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2406 Received: from [192.168.1.159] (unknown [47.151.137.21]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return' From: Joe Perches To: Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com, p.yadav@ti.com Cc: vigneshr@ti.com, michael@walle.cc, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, richard@nod.at, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 07:43:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3ed8da81-55cc-4fbc-cb01-9405ac9709d7@microchip.com> References: <20210306095002.22983-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <20210306095002.22983-6-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <20210308062821.wn4uqfxcg6vo3gcb@ti.com> <5723fabcc03455ee6624a7d223186e5fad2bf2e9.camel@perches.com> <3ed8da81-55cc-4fbc-cb01-9405ac9709d7@microchip.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2021-03-15 at 11:24 +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote: > On 3/15/21 8:53 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:58 +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > > > On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > > > > else is not generally useful after a break or return. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav > > > > > > > I don't think this improves the code. > > > > Generally, checkpatch is a stupid little script. > > > > This code uses a form like: > >         if (foo) > >                 return bar; > >         else > >                 return baz; > > Isn't else redundant? What are the benefits of keeping the else? Visual consistency and it's a widely used style. A long time ago Al Viro wrote: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20140925032215.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk/ which resulted in the patch to checkpatch that tries to ignore that style. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1411621434.4026.9.camel@joe-AO725/ > > I think better would be to change the code to use temporaries > > and convert the functions to bool. > returning one is wrong indeed, would you submit a patch for the conversion > of the functions to bool? Just a suggestion...