linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style issue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507011134090.2374@hadrien>
Date:	Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:35:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Sohny Thomas <sohnythomas@...o.com>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	benjamin.romer@...sys.com, david.kershner@...sys.com,
	bryan.thompson@...sys.com, erik.arfvidson@...sys.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	sparmaintainer@...sys.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: unisys: virtpci: fixed a brace coding style
 issue



On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Sohny Thomas wrote:

> >>>>   	i = virtpci_device_del(NULL /*no parent bus */, VIRTHBA_TYPE,
> >>>>   			       &scsi.wwnn, NULL);
> >>>> -	if (i) {
> >>>> +	if (i)
> >>>>   		return 1;
> >>>> -	}
> >>>> -	return 0;
> >>>> +	else
> >>>> +		return 0;
> >>> No, now this will introduce a new checkpatch warning that "else is not
> >>> required after return". why did you introduce this "else"?
> >> I did this so that the code is more readable and understandable, I checked and
> >> checkpatch didn't call this out , so its clean.
> >>
> >> Otherwise the above code looks like this
> >>
> >> if(i)
> >>    return 1;
> >> return 0;
> >
> > That looks fine.
> >
> > I haven't looked at the code in detail.  Is it normal that the return
> > values seem to be 0 1 and -1?  Which values represent success and which
> > represent an error?  It is nicer to have the errors under if and success
> > as a direct return at the end.
> Here in this driver directory, return 1 means SUCCESS and return 0 means FAILURE

What is -1?

> So you mean my code change is fine?

I think it would be best to have the success case that is not under an if.
So if (!i)
     return 0;
   return 1;

I guess some day the driver would need more normal error codes?

julia
--
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/