Hello, On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 5:30 PM Jani Nikula <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026, Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 03:45:02 +0900 Sang-Heon Jeon wrote: > >> Patch 1 adds a Coccinelle script that matches the pattern, including > >> negation and constant-comparison variants. Where a local variable is > >> assigned right before the check, the assignment and the two returns > >> turn into a single return of the assigned expression. > > > > Huh, I thought we already had such script. Various script children have > > been sending such "cleanups" in the past. > > We did, and it was removed, I believe in 1a617a8475e8 ("coccinelle: > misc: remove "complex return code" warnings"), because people just don't > want this constant churn. > > It's perfectly fine to have the error case and happy day scenario > separated.
Thanks for sharing the history. I checked the mailing list. The removed script looks similar to the new one, but it is different. The removed script reported a conditional return followed by an explicit return 0, where the error case and happy day scenario are separated as you mentioned, and Johan also complained about this 10 years ago. But the new script only reports when both branches return the same variable, not the explicit 0. So, I think the new script is close to the restricted version that Julia mentioned 10 years ago, and it should be acceptable. > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Best Regards, Sang-Heon Jeon
