Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:42:09 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: bpf_jit_comp: simplify trivial boolean return | From | Alexei Starovoitov <> |
| |
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com> wrote: > Remove if then else statements preceding > boolean return. Occurences were found using > Coccinelle. > > The semantic patch used was: > > @@ > expression expr; > @@ > > > - if ( expr ) > - return true; > - else > - return false; > + return expr; > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com> > > --- > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > index 3f62734..1542f39 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c > @@ -135,11 +135,9 @@ static const int reg2hex[] = { > */ > static inline bool is_ereg(u32 reg) > { > - if (reg == BPF_REG_5 || reg == AUX_REG || > - (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9)) > - return true; > - else > - return false; > + return (reg == BPF_REG_5 || > + reg == AUX_REG || > + (reg >= BPF_REG_7 && reg <= BPF_REG_9));
please remove extra () around the whole expression, and align in properly, and don't move reg==AUX_REG check to a different line. Subject is not warranted. I don't think it's a simplification. imo existing code is fine and I don't think the time spent reviewing such changes is worth it when there is no improvement in readability.
| |