Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Test for ACPI_SUCCESS rather than !ACPI_FAILURE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Test for ACPI_SUCCESS rather than !ACPI_FAILURE
From: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:28:57 +0000
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxxx>, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxxx>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxxx>, linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, acpi4asus-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hwmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20210126202317.2914080-1-helgaas@kernel.org>
References: <20210126202317.2914080-1-helgaas@kernel.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:23:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The double negative makes it hard to read "if (!ACPI_FAILURE(status))".
> Replace it with "if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))".

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

References:
- [PATCH] ACPI: Test for ACPI_SUCCESS rather than !ACPI_FAILURE
  - From: Bjorn Helgaas

Prev by Date: [PATCH 0/2] Add check of 4-byte when parsing SFDP 4bait table
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] amba: Make the remove callback return void
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Test for ACPI_SUCCESS rather than !ACPI_FAILURE
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Test for ACPI_SUCCESS rather than !ACPI_FAILURE
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Kernel] [Linux ARM (vger)] [Linux ARM MSM] [Linux Omap] [Linux Arm] [Linux Tegra] [Fedora ARM] [Linux for Samsung SOC] [eCos] [Linux Fastboot] [Gcc Help] [Git] [DCCP] [IETF Announce] [Security] [Linux MIPS] [Yosemite Campsites]