linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: 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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:18:32 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.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 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after
 return

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 00:41 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
> <singhalsimran0@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 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.
> > > > This was done using Coccinelle:
> > > > @@
> > > > expression e2;
> > > > statement s1;
> > > > @@
> > > > if(e2) { ... return ...; }
> > > > -else
> > > >          s1
> > > 
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> > > 
> > > []
> > > > @@ -26,30 +26,26 @@ __dev16 gdm_cpu_to_dev16(struct gdm_endian *ed, u16 x)
> > > >  {
> > > >       if (ed->dev_ed == ENDIANNESS_LITTLE)
> > > >               return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_le16(x);
> > > > -     else
> > > > -             return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > > +     return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> > > 
> > > again, not a checkpatch message for any of the
> > > suggested modified hunks.
> > > 
> 
> I am not getting what's the problem in removing else or may be I
> am wrong you just want to say that I should change the commit message.

2 things:

1: The commit message is incorrect.
2: This form is fundamentally OK:

	if (foo)
		return bar;
	else
		return baz;


So I think this patch is not good.