Acked-by: Saurav Kashyap <saurav.kashyap@xxxxxxxxxx> >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
