linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] Input: da9034-ts - simplify the return expression of da9034_touch

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: <20200916040734.GI1681290@dtor-ws>
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:07:34 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] Input: da9034-ts - simplify the return expression
 of da9034_touch_probe()

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:26:26AM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:
> Simplify the return expression.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/input/touchscreen/da9034-ts.c | 7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9034-ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9034-ts.c
> index 2943f6a58388..dfb2604381d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9034-ts.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9034-ts.c
> @@ -298,7 +298,6 @@ static int da9034_touch_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct da9034_touch_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
>  	struct da9034_touch *touch;
>  	struct input_dev *input_dev;
> -	int error;
>  
>  	touch = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct da9034_touch),
>  			     GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -344,11 +343,7 @@ static int da9034_touch_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	touch->input_dev = input_dev;
>  	input_set_drvdata(input_dev, touch);
>  
> -	error = input_register_device(input_dev);
> -	if (error)
> -		return error;
> -
> -	return 0;
> +	return input_register_device(input_dev);

Thank you for the patch, but I prefer explicit returns on errors when
there are multiple failure points in a function, as that allows
extending the function more easily.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry