On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:42:53AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:33:06PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > TODO file requests fix up of error handling.
> >
> > Audit dgnc_driver.c and fix all return paths to be uniform and inline
> > with kernel coding style.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c | 27 +++++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
> > index 5381dbd..8075fff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_driver.c
> > @@ -98,13 +98,11 @@ static const struct board_id dgnc_ids[] = {
> >
> > static int dgnc_do_remap(struct dgnc_board *brd)
> > {
> > - int rc = 0;
> > -
> > brd->re_map_membase = ioremap(brd->membase, 0x1000);
> > if (!brd->re_map_membase)
> > - rc = -ENOMEM;
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - return rc;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -198,7 +196,6 @@ static struct dgnc_board *dgnc_found_board(struct pci_dev *pdev, int id)
> > brd->bd_dividend = 921600;
> >
> > rc = dgnc_do_remap(brd);
> > -
> > if (rc < 0)
> > goto failed;
> >
> > @@ -283,27 +280,23 @@ static struct dgnc_board *dgnc_found_board(struct pci_dev *pdev, int id)
> >
> > failed:
> > kfree(brd);
> > -
> > return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > }
> >
> > static int dgnc_request_irq(struct dgnc_board *brd)
> > {
> > - int rc = 0;
> > -
> > if (brd->irq) {
> > - rc = request_irq(brd->irq, brd->bd_ops->intr,
> > + int rc = request_irq(brd->irq, brd->bd_ops->intr,
> > IRQF_SHARED, "DGNC", brd);
> > -
> > if (rc) {
> > - dev_err(&brd->pdev->dev,
> > - "Failed to hook IRQ %d\n", brd->irq);
> > + dev_err(&brd->pdev->dev, "Failed to hook IRQ %d\n",
> > + brd->irq);
>
> Why change these two lines?
change based on information in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
...Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and
are placed substantially to the right...
Is my interpretation wrong? I read that as meaning the amendment in question
was preferable to the original?
Or is it a case that neither way is definitively better so better not
to touch it?
thanks for the review,
Tobin.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
