On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:36:19PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:37 AM Clayton Casciato
> <majortomtosourcecontrol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Fixed coding style issue.
>
> I'm not really sure what issue you are fixing here.
>
Checkpatch warns that "else is not generally useful after a break or
return".
> Is it the redundant braces around the nested if () statement?
>
The patch only removes the else clause.
> If so, the flow before and after the patch is different. Is this intentional?
>
Yes. The patch improves readability by removing the outermost context, reducing
the nested conditional complexity.
Thank you for your consideration!
> > Signed-off-by: Clayton Casciato <majortomtosourcecontrol@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/sysfs.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c b/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c
> > index d6626aba4a6a..0e685ca8f78f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/sysfs.c
> > @@ -254,15 +254,15 @@ static int param_get_trace_state(char *buffer, const struct kernel_param *kp)
> > {
> > if (!(acpi_gbl_trace_flags & ACPI_TRACE_ENABLED))
> > return sprintf(buffer, "disable\n");
> > - else {
> > - if (acpi_gbl_trace_method_name) {
> > - if (acpi_gbl_trace_flags & ACPI_TRACE_ONESHOT)
> > - return sprintf(buffer, "method-once\n");
> > - else
> > - return sprintf(buffer, "method\n");
> > - } else
> > - return sprintf(buffer, "enable\n");
> > - }
> > +
> > + if (acpi_gbl_trace_method_name) {
> > + if (acpi_gbl_trace_flags & ACPI_TRACE_ONESHOT)
> > + return sprintf(buffer, "method-once\n");
> > + else
> > + return sprintf(buffer, "method\n");
> > + } else
> > + return sprintf(buffer, "enable\n");
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
