Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] locking/lockdep: Change if to else-if when
 checking bfs errors
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To:     Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org
Cc:     ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:29:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20190318085733.3143-20-duyuyang@gmail.com>
References: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
         <20190318085733.3143-20-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-7"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 16:57 +-0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
+AD4 -       if (ret +ADw 0) +AHs
+AD4 +-       if (unlikely(ret +ADw 0)) +AHs
+AD4                 print+AF8-bfs+AF8-bug(ret)+ADs
+AD4                 return 0+ADs
+AD4         +AH0
+AD4 -       if (ret +AD0APQ 1)
+AD4 +-       else if (ret +AD0APQ 1)
+AD4                 return ret+ADs

Have you verified this patch series with checkpatch? Checkpatch should have
reported that you are changing code that conforms to the coding style into
code that does not conform to the kernel coding style. Checkpatch should have
reported the following:

+ACI-else is not generally useful after a break or return+ACI

Thanks,

Bart.