Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: unittest: remove unneeded local return value variables
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 03/09/18 16:02, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:39:04PM -0800, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Frank Rowand >>> >>> A common pattern in many unittest functions is to save the return >>> value of a function in a local variable, then test the value of >>> the local variable, without using that return value for any further >>> purpose. Remove the local return value variable for these cases. >>> >>> A second common pattern is: >>> >>>ret = some_test_function(many, parameters, ...); >>>if (unittest(ret == 0, "error message format", ...)) >>> return; >>> >>> This pattern is more clear when the local variable 'ret' is used, due >>> to the long lines caused by the parameters to the test function and >>> the long format and data parameters of unittest(). The local >>> variable is retained in these cases. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand >>> --- >>> drivers/of/unittest.c | 89 >>> ++- >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) >> >> Doesn't apply. What's it based on? >> >> Rob >> > > Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned that. > > Based on top of of_overlay_fdt_apply() v7 for 4.17. > > It applies with or without Dan's "[PATCH] of: unittest: fix > an error test in of_unittest_overlay_8()", which made me notice > the common pattern. That's what I figured, but I was not on the right branch... Now both are applied. Rob
Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: unittest: remove unneeded local return value variables
On 03/09/18 16:02, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:39:04PM -0800, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> A common pattern in many unittest functions is to save the return >> value of a function in a local variable, then test the value of >> the local variable, without using that return value for any further >> purpose. Remove the local return value variable for these cases. >> >> A second common pattern is: >> >>ret = some_test_function(many, parameters, ...); >>if (unittest(ret == 0, "error message format", ...)) >> return; >> >> This pattern is more clear when the local variable 'ret' is used, due >> to the long lines caused by the parameters to the test function and >> the long format and data parameters of unittest(). The local >> variable is retained in these cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand >> --- >> drivers/of/unittest.c | 89 >> ++- >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) > > Doesn't apply. What's it based on? > > Rob > Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned that. Based on top of of_overlay_fdt_apply() v7 for 4.17. It applies with or without Dan's "[PATCH] of: unittest: fix an error test in of_unittest_overlay_8()", which made me notice the common pattern. -Frank
Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: unittest: remove unneeded local return value variables
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:39:04PM -0800, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > A common pattern in many unittest functions is to save the return > value of a function in a local variable, then test the value of > the local variable, without using that return value for any further > purpose. Remove the local return value variable for these cases. > > A second common pattern is: > >ret = some_test_function(many, parameters, ...); >if (unittest(ret == 0, "error message format", ...)) > return; > > This pattern is more clear when the local variable 'ret' is used, due > to the long lines caused by the parameters to the test function and > the long format and data parameters of unittest(). The local > variable is retained in these cases. > > Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > --- > drivers/of/unittest.c | 89 > ++- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) Doesn't apply. What's it based on? Rob
