[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140519234623.GA17724@mwanda>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 02:46:23 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Saurav Kashyap <saurav.kashyap@...gic.com>,
Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream <qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/13 v2] [SCSI] qla2xxx: make return of 0 explicit
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 07:36:48AM +0800, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:07:52PM +0000, Saurav Kashyap wrote:
> > > Hi Julia,
> > >
> > > Status is already set to 0 at the beginning of the function, I think
> > > we should just "return status" here to be consistent with the rest of
> > > the function.
> >
> > "return 0;" is more clear than "return status;".
> >
> > Consistency is great so long as it makes the code easier to read. Don't
> > lose track of the real goal.
>
> If status were an informative word, there might be a reason for it. But
> integer typed functions almost always return their status, so there is no
> real information.
Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you... "return 0;" is better.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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