Thus wrote Dan Carpenter (dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 05:15:51PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote: > > ret is initialized to _SUCCESS, there's no need to set it again. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@xxxxxxxxx> > I liked the original code better. Otherwise you wonder, is it > intentional to return success on this path. You're right. The original code is easier to understand. It's not obvious that this check should return _SUCCESS and the remaining ones return _FAIL. Greg, could you drop this patch or should I resend the series without this patch? Thanks, Martin
