On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message Pine.LNX.4.64.0808311805020.3747@axis700.grange you wrote:
I don't see any need to change this code. Patch rejected.
return (0) and similar produce warnings from checkpatch.pl. If I followed
Ah! Then you should have at least mentioned in your comments that this was the motivation of your changes. As you posted it, it looked just like a change because you didn't like the style.
Sorry, will do in the next version, which, as it seems, will be necessary.
this local style and used parenthesis in all returns I added, all of them would cause checkpatch warnings. If I only added returns without parenthesis the mixed style would look terrible. So, I consider this a coding style clean up, just as well as any space vs. tab, or brace on the same line as if or for or...
Frankly, I don't understand what checkpatch is warning about. IMO this is really just a matter f style, and I'm still using habits learned from K&R.
In my K&R second edition, which I just skipped over again, I haven't seen a single occurrence of "return (x)". No, I haven't checked every single return statement in the book, but I did come across a couple of dozens of them, they all just did "return x".
If you had learned C from the Unix version 6 code like me you'd most probbaly write "return (value);", too. (Just for the fun of it I checked if my memory is with me - in the whole Unix v7 code, kernel + libraries + commands, I could find just 18 cases where "return value;" was used.)
ic.
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de