linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

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: <20151004105056.GM4284@localhost>
Date:	Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:50:56 -0400
From:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Do you consider that this function would be better off in two lines?
> 
> static int mxt_acquire_irq(struct mxt_data *data)
> {
>         int error;
> 
>         enable_irq(data->irq);
> 
>         error = mxt_process_messages_until_invalid(data);
>         if (error)
>                 return error;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

Actually no, but again I'd say it's up to the author to decide.

> Would simplifying the code at the end of the following function be helpful
> or not?
> 
> static int adnp_gpio_setup(struct adnp *adnp, unsigned int num_gpios)
> {
>         struct gpio_chip *chip = &adnp->gpio;
>         int err;
> 
>         adnp->reg_shift = get_count_order(num_gpios) - 3;
> 
>         chip->direction_input = adnp_gpio_direction_input;
>         chip->direction_output = adnp_gpio_direction_output;
>         chip->get = adnp_gpio_get;
>         chip->set = adnp_gpio_set;
>         chip->can_sleep = true;
> 
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS))
>                 chip->dbg_show = adnp_gpio_dbg_show;
> 
>         chip->base = -1;
>         chip->ngpio = num_gpios;
>         chip->label = adnp->client->name;
>         chip->dev = &adnp->client->dev;
>         chip->of_node = chip->dev->of_node;
>         chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> 
>         err = gpiochip_add(chip);
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

I think this is just fine as is as well.

Thanks,
Johan
--
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/