> > -out: > > - mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > + ret = adxl367_set_measure_en(st, true); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > > > - iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev); > > + st->range = range; > > > > - return ret; > > + return 0; > > + } > > + unreachable(); > > } > > I do agree this is irritating. Personally I would prefer to return 0 (or the > last ret value) instead of the unusual unreachable() builtin. But that's me :) Definitely would be an error, not 0 or ret, but I'm still in two minds about this in general. I think I'll go with unreachable for now and see if we get an push back. > > > - Nuno Sá
