also to: Julia Lawall for the idea on a cocci rule. On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 4:45 PM Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Added and documented UNNECESSARY_ELSE message type. > > Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx> 1. Julia, below is the description of a syntactic rule for unneeded else branches; checkpatch implements a simple incomplete heuristics. While reading this, I wondered if a student/learner for coccinelle could actually write a cocci rule that does detect this pattern a bit better than checkpatch. Maybe, you can add this to your (for students'/newcomers') TODO list? It would certainly be interesting to see some first evaluation. 2. Utkarsh, please send new patch versions v2, v3, etc. always as new email threads, not as responses to the original patch. See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211001120218.28751-1-utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx/T/#t As you see, the email thread is very confusing; developers, maintainers and tools have a hard time to find the latest version of the patch and link the discussion. The process documentation should already point out to NOT send next version patches as reply to older patches. Lukas > --- > Changes in v2: > - Included the continue statement. > > Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > index f0956e9ea2d8..b7c41e876d1d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst > @@ -1166,3 +1166,80 @@ Others > > **TYPO_SPELLING** > Some words may have been misspelled. Consider reviewing them. > + > + **UNNECESSARY_ELSE** > + Using an else statement just after a return/break/continue statement is > + unnecessary. For example:: > + > + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) { > + int foo = bar(); > + if (foo < 1) > + break; > + else > + usleep(1); > + } > + > + is generally better written as:: > + > + for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) { > + int foo = bar(); > + if (foo < 1) > + break; > + usleep(1); > + } > + > + It helps to reduce the indentation and removes the unnecessary else > + statement. But note, there can be some false positives because of the > + way it is implemented in the checkpatch script. The checkpatch script > + throws this warning message if it finds an else statement and the line > + above it is a break/continue/return statement indented at one tab more > + than the else statement. So there can be some false positives like:: > + > + int n = 15; > + if (n > 10) > + n--; > + else if (n == 10) > + return 0; > + else > + n++; > + > + Now the checkpatch will give a warning for the use of else after return > + statement. If the else statement is removed then:: > + > + int n = 15; > + if (n > 10) > + n--; > + else if (n == 10) > + return 0; > + n++; > + > + Now both the n-- and n++ statements will be executed which is different > + from the logic in the first case. As the if block doesn't have a return > + statement, so removing the else statement is wrong. > + > + Always check the previous if/else if blocks, for break/continue/return > + statements, and do not blindly follow the checkpatch advice. One > + patch (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200615155131.GA4563@sevic69/) > + even made it to the mainline, which was again reverted and fixed. > + Commit 98fe05e21a6e ("staging: rtl8712: Remove unnecesary else > + after return statement.") > + > + Also, do not change the code if there is only a single return statement > + inside if-else block, like:: > + > + if (a > b) > + return a; > + else > + return b; > + > + now if the else statement is removed:: > + > + if (a > b) > + return a; > + return b; > + > + there is no considerable increase in the readability and one can argue > + that the first form is more readable because of the indentation. So > + do not remove the else statement in case of a single return statement > + inside the if-else block. > + See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20140925032215.GK7996@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > -- > 2.25.1 >
