linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] staging: lustre: Remove unnecessary else after return

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: <CALrZqyP-BRPj4jEFgU=B_AV7E4-tJfgaXwwxRhUprLg_4gWQkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:31:32 +0530
From:   SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] staging: lustre: Remove unnecessary else after return

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 01:51 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:
>> > > This patch fixes the checkpatch warning that else is not generally
>> > > useful after a break or return.
>> >
>> > checkpatch doesn't actually warn for this style
>> >
>> >         if (foo)
>> >                 return bar;
>> >         else
>> >                 return baz;
>> >
>>
>> ok, My bad
>> so, I have to change commit message as checkpatch doesn't warn for this style.
>
> Perhaps better would be to leave them unchanged instead.
>
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd.c
> []
>> > > @@ -1806,8 +1806,7 @@ ksocknal_close_matching_conns(struct lnet_process_id id, __u32 ipaddr)
>> > >
>> > >       if (!count)
>> > >               return -ENOENT;
>> > > -     else
>> > > -             return 0;
>> > > +     return 0;
>
> There might be a case for this one.
> error returns are generally in the form
>
> {
>         [...]
>
>         err = func(...);
>         if (err < 0)
>                 return err;
>
>         return 0;
> }
Not sure, what's the problem in removing else as according to me
there is no use of else.

In this case if (if condition) does not satisfy then else condition will
be satisfied and function will return 0.