On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 17:33:09 +0200 Waqar Hameed <waqar.hameed@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 12:06 +0100 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > >> >> + dev_err(data->dev, "Could not write hp filter frequency (%d)\n", > >> >> + ret); > >> >> + return ret; > >> > > >> > drop this return ret out of the if block here. > >> > > >> > In general being able to ignore possibility of ret > 0 simplifies handling. > >> > >> I try to be consistent and it also "helps" the next person potentially > >> adding code after the `if`-statement and forgetting about adding > >> `return`. We can drop the `return here, but then we should do the same > >> in other places with a check just before the last `return` (like > >> `irsd200_write_timer()`, `irsd200_read_nr_count()`, > >> `irsd200_write_nr_count()` and many more), right? > > > > I don't feel particulartly strongly about this, but there are scripts > > that get used to scan for this pattern to simplify the code. > > > > Sure on the other cases. I don't tend to try and label all cases of things > > pointed out, just pick on one and rely on the patch author to generalise. > > I started to remove the returns but then realized that it got a little > messy. For example, in some cases we can't drop the return (side effects > after the return etc.). > > Since you didn't have any strong opinions on this, I kept them in v2. > Hope that's fine! Absolutely. I wasn't advocating removing separate returns in general, just this cases where there was nothing after the if check. Thanks, Jonathan
