[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140819145916.GC18536@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:59:16 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: ts72xx_wdt: Kill superfluous variable in remove
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> There is no need to store the return value of misc_deregister() in a
> variable. Instead we can just return the value directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/ts72xx_wdt.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/ts72xx_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/ts72xx_wdt.c
> index afa9d6ef353a..dee9c6cbe6df 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/ts72xx_wdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/ts72xx_wdt.c
> @@ -428,11 +428,7 @@ static int ts72xx_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> static int ts72xx_wdt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> - int error;
> -
> - error = misc_deregister(&ts72xx_wdt_miscdev);
> -
> - return error;
> + return misc_deregister(&ts72xx_wdt_miscdev);
Is that worth it, and does it even reduce code size ?
Converting the driver to use the watchdog infrastructure would make much more sense
(if someone can test the result).
Guenter
--
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