On 12/27/21 4:18 PM, Aleksandr Mezin wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 9:43 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/27/21 3:36 AM, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
Eliminate following coccicheck warning:
./drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c:461:12-13: WARNING opportunity for min().
Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c b/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c
index 534d39b8908e..b30de7441fbb 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ static int send_output_report(struct drvdata *drvdata, const void *data,
ret = hid_hw_output_report(drvdata->hid, drvdata->output_buffer,
sizeof(drvdata->output_buffer));
- return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
+ return min(ret, 0);
Nack, that is just confusing. ret is an error if < 0, and min obfuscates
that we want to return an error or 0.
Guenter
Should I change that ternary operator to a full "if" maybe?
Apparently, both some people and some tools read it as "min()".
No, the code is good as is, using if() doesn't really make a difference,
and I _really_ don't want to encourage people to start submitting patches
to change the other 100+ instances of the same code in the kernel.
Guenter
