[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5723fabcc03455ee6624a7d223186e5fad2bf2e9.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 23:53:04 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
Cc: vigneshr@...com, michael@...le.cc, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: swp: Drop 'else' after 'return'
On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 11:58 +0530, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 06/03/21 11:50AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> > else is not generally useful after a break or return.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@...com>
>
I don't think this improves the code.
Generally, checkpatch is a stupid little script.
This code uses a form like:
if (foo)
return bar;
else
return baz;
which checkpatch recognizes as OK and so checkpatch does not
emit any warning message, but this code just adds comments
before each return which confuses checkpatch.
I think better would be to change the code to use temporaries
and convert the functions to bool.
Something like:
---
drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index 0522304f52fa..e174a2f1d621 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1798,36 +1798,41 @@ static void spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, u8 sr, loff_t *ofs,
}
/*
- * Return 1 if the entire region is locked (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if
- * @locked is false); 0 otherwise
+ * Return true if the entire region is locked
+ * (if @locked is true) or unlocked (if @locked is false); false otherwise
*/
-static int spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
+static bool spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs,
uint64_t len, u8 sr, bool locked)
{
loff_t lock_offs;
uint64_t lock_len;
+ uint64_t lock_max;
+ uint64_t ofs_max;
if (!len)
- return 1;
+ return true;
spi_nor_get_locked_range_sr(nor, sr, &lock_offs, &lock_len);
+ lock_max = lock_offs + lock_len;
+ ofs_max = ofs + len;
+
if (locked)
/* Requested range is a sub-range of locked range */
- return (ofs + len <= lock_offs + lock_len) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
+ return (ofs_max <= lock_max) && (ofs >= lock_offs);
else
/* Requested range does not overlap with locked range */
- return (ofs >= lock_offs + lock_len) || (ofs + len <= lock_offs);
+ return (ofs >= lock_max) || (ofs_max <= lock_offs);
}
-static int spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
- u8 sr)
+static bool spi_nor_is_locked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+ u8 sr)
{
return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, true);
}
-static int spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
- u8 sr)
+static bool spi_nor_is_unlocked_sr(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
+ u8 sr)
{
return spi_nor_check_lock_status_sr(nor, ofs, len, sr, false);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists