Hi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sergei Zviagintsev <ser...@s15v.net> wrote:
> Assign zero to `ret' in the beginning of function instead of doing it
> in the end.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergei Zviagintsev <ser...@s15v.net>
> ---
> ipc/kdbus/connection.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/kdbus/connection.c b/ipc/kdbus/connection.c
> index 4f3cd370ecd9..185ed3ba1bce 100644
> --- a/ipc/kdbus/connection.c
> +++ b/ipc/kdbus/connection.c
> @@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ int kdbus_conn_entry_insert(struct kdbus_conn *conn_src,
> const struct kdbus_name_entry *name)
> {
> struct kdbus_queue_entry *entry;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> kdbus_conn_lock2(conn_src, conn_dst);
>
> @@ -916,8 +916,6 @@ int kdbus_conn_entry_insert(struct kdbus_conn *conn_src,
> kdbus_queue_entry_enqueue(entry, reply);
> wake_up_interruptible(&conn_dst->wait);
>
> - ret = 0;
> -
Not a big fan of this. It makes it less obvious, and this style is
wrong in several cases (but not here). We often only check for "ret <
0", but generally want >0 to be turned into 0 on return.
It does not matter in this specific case, but I prefer making return
codes explicit, rather than relying on a previous initialization to be
still valid.
What's your rationale here?
Thanks
David
> exit_unlock:
> kdbus_conn_unlock2(conn_src, conn_dst);
> return ret;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
