linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function, parentheses are not required' in bpctl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1386286162.10003.24.camel@joe-AO722>
Date:	Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:29:22 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	Will Tange <bh34rt@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: silicom: fix 'return is not a function,
 parentheses are not required' in bpctl_mod.c

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 02:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:09:15PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 01:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:23:53PM +0100, Will Tange wrote:
> > > > Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch tool in bpctl_mod.c
> > []
> > > 	if (ret < 0)
> > > 		return BP_NOT_CAP;
> > > 	if (ret == 0)
> > > 		return 1;
> > > 	return 0;
> > > 
> > > More lines, but simpler to understand than the original.
> > > 
> > > Think of checkpatch.pl as a pointer to bad code and not that we just
> > > have to silence checkpatch and move on.
> > 
> > So true.
> > 
> > If 0 is the expected ret value and 1 is the
> > expected function return for not-errored use,
> > I suggest changing the last bit to:
> > 
> > 	if (ret < 0)
> > 		return BP_NOT_CAP;
> > 	else if (ret > 0)
> > 		return 0;
> > 
> > 	return 1;
> > 
> > so that the error conditions are done first
> > and the normal return is at the bottom of
> > the function.
> 
> In this function, -1 means fail, 1 means "on" and 0 means "off".  I
> sorted them from lowest to highest: negative, zero and greater than
> zero.

Ah.

Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead

	return ret ? 0 : 1;
or
	return !ret;

cheers, Joe

--
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/