[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cd65ca29-1e24-1064-ccd4-160dbd041036@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:37:47 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, rjui@...adcom.com, sbranden@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@....com.cn>,
Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] PCI: iproc: Remove the unneeded result
variable
On 9/6/2022 2:27 PM, Scott Branden wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-09-06 14:25, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:16:36AM +0000, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
>>> From: ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@....com.cn>
>>>
>>> Return the value iproc_pcie_setup_ib() directly instead of storing it in
>>> another redundant variable.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
>>> Signed-off-by: ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@....com.cn>
>>
>> This patch itself is fine,
> Does the patch serve any real use though?
Not really though if we don't accept it, then someone else will submit a
similar patch later, since it is obviously correct, might as well accept it?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists