On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski, > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > > I don't see any need to change this code. Patch rejected. > > > > return (0) and similar produce warnings from checkpatch.pl. If I followed > > Ah! Then you should have at least mentioned in your comments that > this was the motivation of your changes. As you posted it, it looked > just like a change because you didn't like the style.
Sorry, will do in the next version, which, as it seems, will be necessary. > > this local style and used parenthesis in all returns I added, all of them > > would cause checkpatch warnings. If I only added returns without > > parenthesis the mixed style would look terrible. So, I consider this a > > coding style clean up, just as well as any space vs. tab, or brace on the > > same line as if or for or... > > Frankly, I don't understand what checkpatch is warning about. IMO > this is really just a matter f style, and I'm still using habits > learned from K&R. In my K&R second edition, which I just skipped over again, I haven't seen a single occurrence of "return (x)". No, I haven't checked every single return statement in the book, but I did come across a couple of dozens of them, they all just did "return x". > If you had learned C from the Unix version 6 code > like me you'd most probbaly write "return (value);", too. (Just for > the fun of it I checked if my memory is with me - in the whole Unix > v7 code, kernel + libraries + commands, I could find just 18 cases > where "return value;" was used.) ic. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
