On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:36:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:18:22PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 06:10:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > Return -EINVAL if "bridge->n_sensors == 0". Don't return success.
>
> ...
>
> > > > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > > > - if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0)
> > > > + if (ret || bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > > > + ret = ret ?: -EINVAL;
> > > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > I would split:
> > >
> > > ret = ipu_bridge_connect_sensors(bridge);
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > >
> > > if (bridge->n_sensors == 0) {
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > goto err_unregister_ipu;
> > > }
> >
> > It's always hard to know which way to go on these... I wrote it that
> > way in my first draft. It's my prefered way as well but not everyone
> > agrees. I'll resend.
>
> Is the generated assembly the same?
Yeah, it does.
regards,
dan carpenter
