Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> fix the following code:
>
> -ret = expression;
> -if (ret)
> -return ret;
> -return 0;
> +return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
I agree that we can write the expression in a different way, but is it really
worth it?
Is this
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> fix the following code:
>
> -ret = expression;
> -if (ret)
> -return ret;
> -return 0;
> +return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
I agree that we can write the expression in a different way, but is it really
worth it?
Is this
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 08:35, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> I think yes ...
>
>> Is this part of a tree-wide cleanup?
>
> Yes, and I thought it is worth to change this part in linux too.
Agreed. Can you please resend with a proper change log and (more important)
a correct sob-chain? From: and first
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 08:35, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> I think yes ...
>
>> Is this part of a tree-wide cleanup?
>
> Yes, and I thought it is worth to change this part in linux too.
Agreed. Can you please resend with a proper change log and (more important)
a correct sob-chain? From: and first
Hello Richard,
Am 05.09.2016 um 08:28 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
fix the following code:
-ret = expression;
-if (ret)
-return ret;
-return 0;
+return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
Ok, fix is to hard spoken ... nothing
Hello Richard,
Am 05.09.2016 um 08:28 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
fix the following code:
-ret = expression;
-if (ret)
-return ret;
-return 0;
+return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
Ok, fix is to hard spoken ... nothing
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 08:35, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> I think yes ...
>
>> Is this part of a tree-wide cleanup?
>
> Yes, and I thought it is worth to change this part in linux too.
Agreed. Can you please resend with a proper change log and (more important)
a correct sob-chain? From: and first
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 08:35, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> I think yes ...
>
>> Is this part of a tree-wide cleanup?
>
> Yes, and I thought it is worth to change this part in linux too.
Agreed. Can you please resend with a proper change log and (more important)
a correct sob-chain? From: and first
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> fix the following code:
>
> -ret = expression;
> -if (ret)
> -return ret;
> -return 0;
> +return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
I agree that we can write the expression in a different way, but is it really
worth it?
Is this
Heiko,
On 05.09.2016 06:59, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> fix the following code:
>
> -ret = expression;
> -if (ret)
> -return ret;
> -return 0;
> +return expression;
"Fix"? ;-)
What was broken?
I agree that we can write the expression in a different way, but is it really
worth it?
Is this
fix the following code:
-ret = expression;
-if (ret)
-return ret;
-return 0;
+return expression;
From: Masahiro Yamada
posted on the U-Boot mailinglist.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher
---
fs/ubifs/budget.c | 7 ++-
fs/ubifs/gc.c
fix the following code:
-ret = expression;
-if (ret)
-return ret;
-return 0;
+return expression;
From: Masahiro Yamada
posted on the U-Boot mailinglist.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher
---
fs/ubifs/budget.c | 7 ++-
fs/ubifs/gc.c | 6 ++
fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c | 5
12 matches
Mail list logo