On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 07:36:48AM +0800, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 May 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:07:52PM +0000, Saurav Kashyap wrote: > > > Hi Julia, > > > > > > Status is already set to 0 at the beginning of the function, I think > > > we should just "return status" here to be consistent with the rest of > > > the function. > > > > "return 0;" is more clear than "return status;". > > > > Consistency is great so long as it makes the code easier to read. Don't > > lose track of the real goal. > > If status were an informative word, there might be a reason for it. But > integer typed functions almost always return their status, so there is no > real information. Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you... "return 0;" is better. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
