On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:49 AM, SIMRAN SINGHAL
> <singhalsimran0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 23:44 +0530, simran singhal wrote:
> >>> This patch fixes the checkpatch warning that else is not generally
> >>> useful after a break or return.
> >>
> >>> This was done using Coccinelle:
> >>> @@
> >>> expression e2;
> >>> statement s1;
> >>> @@
> >>> if(e2) { ... return ...; }
> >>> -else
> >>> s1
> >> []
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_endian.c
> >> []
> >>> @@ -26,30 +26,26 @@ __dev16 gdm_cpu_to_dev16(struct gdm_endian *ed, u16 x)
> >>> {
> >>> if (ed->dev_ed == ENDIANNESS_LITTLE)
> >>> return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_le16(x);
> >>> - else
> >>> - return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> >>> + return (__force __dev16)cpu_to_be16(x);
> >>
> >> again, not a checkpatch message for any of the
> >> suggested modified hunks.
> >>
> I am not getting what's the problem in removing else or may be I
> am wrong you just want to say that I should change the commit message.
Yes, I think that the issue is just the commit message. Was it really
checkpatch that motivated you to do this? Joe maintains checkpatch, and
he doesn't think that it gives such a warning.
julia
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
