[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALF0-+UuB0y_8+SLE05Sn997HDcP5u=AJsoGvjmfSUBB__DkhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:14:30 -0300
From: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [media] stk1160: Check return value of stk1160_read_reg()
in stk1160_i2c_read_reg()
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> wrote:
>> > > There are two checks for 'rc' being less than zero with no change to
>> > > 'rc' between the two, so the second is just dead code - remove it.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
>> > > ---
>> > > drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c | 3 ---
>> > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
>> > > index 176ac93..035cf8c 100644
>> > > --- a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
>> > > +++ b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
>> > > @@ -117,9 +117,6 @@ static int stk1160_i2c_read_reg(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 addr,
>> > > return rc;
>> > >
>> > > stk1160_read_reg(dev, STK1160_SBUSR_RD, value);
>> > > - if (rc < 0)
>> > > - return rc;
>> > > -
>> > > return 0;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> >
>> > Thanks for doing this. Wouldn't you like to save stk1160_read_reg
>> > return code to rc, instead of this?
>> >
>> Ahh yes, I guess I was too quick to just assume it was dead code.
>> Looking at it again; what you suggest must have been the original
>> intention. I'll cook up a new patch.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:16:37 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] [media] stk1160: Check return value of stk1160_read_reg() in stk1160_i2c_read_reg()
>
> Currently there are two checks for 'rc' being less than zero with no
> change to 'rc' between the two, so the second is just dead code.
> The intention seems to have been to assign the return value of
> 'stk1160_read_reg()' to 'rc' before the (currently dead) second check
> and then test /that/. This patch does that.
>
This is an overly complicated explanation for such a small patch.
Can you try to simplify it?
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
> ---
> drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
> index 176ac93..a2370e4 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/stk1160/stk1160-i2c.c
> @@ -116,10 +116,9 @@ static int stk1160_i2c_read_reg(struct stk1160 *dev, u8 addr,
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
>
> - stk1160_read_reg(dev, STK1160_SBUSR_RD, value);
> + rc = stk1160_read_reg(dev, STK1160_SBUSR_RD, value);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
Why are you removing this line?
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
Thanks,
Ezequiel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists