linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] media: staging: atomisp: Removed else branch in function

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: <20201006180410.GH4282@kadam>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 21:04:10 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Leonid Kushnir <leonf008@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
        mchehab@...nel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] media: staging: atomisp: Removed else branch in
 function

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:17:21AM +0200, Leonid Kushnir wrote:
> This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning :
> 
> WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> 
> Expressions under 'else' branch in function 'gc0310_s_power' are
> executed whenever the exppression in 'if' is False. Otherwise, return
> from function occurs. Therefore, there is no need in 'else', and it has
> been removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leonid Kushnir <leonf008@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-gc0310.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-gc0310.c b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-gc0310.c
> index 6be3ee1d93a5..8201c15b5769 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-gc0310.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-gc0310.c
> @@ -874,11 +874,10 @@ static int gc0310_s_power(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int on)
>  
>  	if (on == 0)
>  		return power_down(sd);
> -	else {
> -		ret = power_up(sd);
> -		if (!ret)
> -			return gc0310_init(sd);
> -	}
> +	ret = power_up(sd);
> +	if (!ret)

Flip this check around as well.

> +		return gc0310_init(sd);
> +
>  	return ret;

Code should generally do "error handling" instead of "success handling".
That way the success path is always indented one tab and the error path
is indented two tabs.  I like to say that the call and the error handling
are part of the same thing, but with success handling, it's like
do the call, do more stuff, go back to the error handling from the
earlier call.

Anyway, TLDR, please write it like this:

	if (on == 0)
 		return power_down(sd);

	ret = power_up(sd);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	return gc0310_init(sd);

regards,
dan carpenter