>> ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, offset, value);
>> - if (ret < 0) {
>> - dev_err(ctx->dev, "writebm: %4s[0x%02x] <- 0x%02x\n",
>> - sii9234_client_name[id], offset, value);
>> - ctx->i2c_error = ret;
>> - }
>> + if (!ret)
>> + return 0;
>
> Ugh. No. Don't do success handling on the last if statement.
I find my approach useful in this case.
> Also while I personally prefer testing for non-zero,
I got used to this checking style to some degree.
> the ALSA people got annoyed at you for changing tests for < 0
It seems that involved software developers have got special preferences there.
> but you're doing it again.
I dared to propose such an adjustment once more.
Would you like discuss corresponding reasons any further?
> And it introduces a bug,
Unfortunately, a hiccup in my software development attention …
> although I see now that you fixed it in v2.
Thanks that you noticed also this small update.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10021767/
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<2ecf0bb7-7129-40e4-cefc-0bc2d0f7ee8b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I can't get excited about these sort of risky low value patches.
I try again to point special software improvement opportunities out.
>> +report_failure:
>> + dev_err(ctx->dev, "writebm: %4s[0x%02x] <- 0x%02x\n",
>> + sii9234_client_name[id], offset, value);
>> + ctx->i2c_error = ret;
>> return ret;
>> }
How do you think about to move this source code to the end of
this function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
--
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
