On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 00:41 +0530, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
> <singhalsimr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> > >
> > > []
> > > > @@ -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.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
