Hi Lisa,
Thank you for the patch.
On Tuesday 10 December 2013 08:05:42 Lisa Nguyen wrote:
> Rewrite the return statement in vpfe_video.c to eliminate the
> use of a ternary operator. This will prevent the checkpatch.pl
> script from generating a warning saying to remove () from
> this particular return statement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lisa Nguyen <l...@xenapiadmin.com>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
> - Aligned -ETIMEDOUT return statement with if condition
>
> drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
> b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c index 24d98a6..22e31d2
> 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/davinci_vpfe/vpfe_video.c
> @@ -346,7 +346,10 @@ static int vpfe_pipeline_disable(struct vpfe_pipeline
> *pipe) }
> mutex_unlock(&mdev->graph_mutex);
>
> - return (ret == 0) ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT ;
> + if (ret == 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
I don't want to point the obvious, but what about just
return ret ? -ETIMEDOUT : 0;
or, if this is just about fixing the checkpatch.pl warning,
return ret == 0 ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT;
(I'd prefer the first)
> }
>
> /*
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
