Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752652AbaGGSoq (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:44:46 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53]:55931 "EHLO mail-oa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbaGGSom (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:44:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1403782279-10116-1-git-send-email-rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:44:41 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: pinctrl-msm.c: Cleaning up if unsigned is less than zero From: Rickard Strandqvist To: Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2014-07-07 17:40 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij : > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Rickard Strandqvist > wrote: > >> Remove checking if a unsigned is less than zero >> >> This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist > (...) >> - if (WARN_ON(g->mux_bit < 0)) >> + if (WARN_ON(g->mux_bit != 0)) > > Is that correct? > > If the variable cannot be < 0 should the check not simply be > deleted, since this is all it checks for? Hi Linus! Yes, it was a bit silly. Do not really know how that happened :-/ I guess I thought it was reasonable. But I should do as I have tried to do in all other cases, the smallest possible change. And let you check in code, if so, to capture what is missing. New patch on the way! Kind regards Rickard Strandqvist -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/