On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:39:18PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote: > 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? Please resend without this one. thanks, greg k-h
