Messages in this thread | | | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] hwmon: Use min() instead of doing it manually | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 2021 16:36:34 -0800 |
| |
On 12/27/21 4:18 PM, Aleksandr Mezin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 9:43 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> >> On 12/27/21 3:36 AM, Jiapeng Chong wrote: >>> Eliminate following coccicheck warning: >>> >>> ./drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c:461:12-13: WARNING opportunity for min(). >>> >>> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c b/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c >>> index 534d39b8908e..b30de7441fbb 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c >>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/nzxt-smart2.c >>> @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ static int send_output_report(struct drvdata *drvdata, const void *data, >>> >>> ret = hid_hw_output_report(drvdata->hid, drvdata->output_buffer, >>> sizeof(drvdata->output_buffer)); >>> - return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; >>> + return min(ret, 0); >> >> Nack, that is just confusing. ret is an error if < 0, and min obfuscates >> that we want to return an error or 0. >> >> Guenter > > Should I change that ternary operator to a full "if" maybe? > Apparently, both some people and some tools read it as "min()". > No, the code is good as is, using if() doesn't really make a difference, and I _really_ don't want to encourage people to start submitting patches to change the other 100+ instances of the same code in the kernel.
Guenter
| |