Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: gdm724x: Remove unnecessary else after return

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote:

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 00:41 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:

quoted

This patch fixes the checkpatch warning that else is not generally
useful after a break or return.
This was done using Coccinelle:
@@
expression e2;
statement s1;
@@
if(e2) { ... return ...; }
-else
         s1

[]

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c

[]

quoted

@@ -26,30 +26,26 @@ __dev16 gdm_cpu_to_dev16(struct gdm_endian *ed, u16 x)
 {
      if (ed->dev_ed = ENDIANNESS_LITTLE)
              return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_le16(x);
-     else
-             return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
+     return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);

again, not a checkpatch message for any of the
suggested modified hunks.

I am not getting what's the problem in removing else or may be I
am wrong you just want to say that I should change the commit message.

2 things:

1: The commit message is incorrect.
2: This form is fundamentally OK:

	if (foo)
		return bar;
	else
		return baz;


So I think this patch is not good.

I agree in this case.  The two branches are quite parallel.  In some of
the other patches, the if was looking for the absence of some resource or
the failure of something, so there was a clear distinction between one
branch being cleanup on failure and the other branch being the continuing
successful computation, even if it is just to return a success indicator.

julia