linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/21] spi: s3c64xx: add missing blank line after declaration

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: <CAPLW+4nPC2F0jS1UrTVEJA83gcxgfX4wa_YT0Lu5oJG4G5B2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:49:27 -0600
From: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, andi.shyti@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, 
	robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	alim.akhtar@...sung.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, andre.draszik@...aro.org, 
	peter.griffin@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, willmcvicker@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] spi: s3c64xx: add missing blank line after declaration

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:54 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aroorg> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/23/24 19:28, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 9:34 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add missing blank line after declaration. Move initialization in the
> >> body of the function.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c | 3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> >> index f5474f3b3920..2abf5994080a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-s3c64xx.c
> >> @@ -1273,8 +1273,9 @@ static int s3c64xx_spi_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>  {
> >>         struct spi_controller *host = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>         struct s3c64xx_spi_driver_data *sdd = spi_controller_get_devdata(host);
> >> +       int ret;
> >>
> >> -       int ret = spi_controller_suspend(host);
> >> +       ret = spi_controller_suspend(host);
> >
> > Why not just moving the empty line below the declaration block,
> > keeping the initialization on the variable declaration line?
> >
>
> just a matter of personal preference. I find it ugly to do an
> initialization at variable declaration and then to immediately check the
> return value in the body of the function. But I'll do as you say, just
> cosmetics anyway.

That's not like "do as I say", I'm just a mere reviewer anyway, so
it's just my opinion :) You can leave it as is, and I kinda can see
your point now (having actual logical operation executed in main body
rather than in initialization list):

Reviewed-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>