On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 02:21 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:09:15PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 01:50 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:23:53PM +0100, Will Tange wrote: > > > > Fixes warnings regarding redundant parantheses thrown by the checkpatch tool in bpctl_mod.c > > [] > > > if (ret < 0) > > > return BP_NOT_CAP; > > > if (ret == 0) > > > return 1; > > > return 0; > > > > > > More lines, but simpler to understand than the original. > > > > > > Think of checkpatch.pl as a pointer to bad code and not that we just > > > have to silence checkpatch and move on. > > > > So true. > > > > If 0 is the expected ret value and 1 is the > > expected function return for not-errored use, > > I suggest changing the last bit to: > > > > if (ret < 0) > > return BP_NOT_CAP; > > else if (ret > 0) > > return 0; > > > > return 1; > > > > so that the error conditions are done first > > and the normal return is at the bottom of > > the function. > > In this function, -1 means fail, 1 means "on" and 0 means "off". I > sorted them from lowest to highest: negative, zero and greater than > zero. Ah. Then maybe use a single ?: or a ! instead return ret ? 0 : 1; or return !ret; cheers, Joe _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
