linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:18:17 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        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: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove
 unnecessary else after return



On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, 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.

Yes, I think that the issue is just the commit message.  Was it really
checkpatch that motivated you to do this?  Joe maintains checkpatch, and
he doesn't think that it gives such a warning.

julia