On 4/9/21 3:41 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:13:12AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
On 4/9/21 8:05 AM, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
On 4/9/21 1:01 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:32 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@foss.st.com wrote:
On 4/9/21 11:48 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 12:28 PM Patrice CHOTARD patrice.chotard@foss.st.com wrote: > On 4/9/21 11:16 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 10:37 AM Patrice Chotard >> patrice.chotard@foss.st.com wrote:
...
>>> + if (drv) { >>> + if (drv == entry) >>> + break; >> >>> + } else { >>> + if (!ret) >>> + break; >>> + } >> >> This can be simplified to >> } else if (!ret) >> break; > > I know but checkpatch.pl requested it ;-)
You mean it doesn't recognize 'else if' construction? Then it's a bug there for sure.
No, i mean checkpath.pl request to put {} on all statements as shown below :
./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-cmd-bind-Fix-driver-binding-on-a-device.patch CHECK: braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement #83: FILE: drivers/core/lists.c:228:
if (drv) {[...]
} else if (!ret)So, you still can put else and if on one line, right?
No, if i put else and if on one line as you suggested, checkpatch.pl is complaining as shown above.
Patrice
} else if (!ret) { break; }
?
Thanks, that's fine for me. Does checkpatch.pl complain on this?
This implementation is OK too, checkpatch is happy with it.