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: <ca59b2ea703e60c2b74d7f0795dcf31dd2c8ba3c.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] locking/lockdep: Change if to else-if when
 checking bfs errors
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        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 10:19:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
References: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com>
         <20190318085733.3143-20-duyuyang@gmail.com>
         <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.1-1build1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 09:29 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 16:57 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > -       if (ret < 0) {
> > +       if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> >                 print_bfs_bug(ret);
> >                 return 0;
> >         }
> > -       if (ret == 1)
> > +       else if (ret == 1)
> >                 return ret;
> 
> 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:
> 
> "else is not generally useful after a break or return"

checkpatch just ain't that smart.
You're welcome to try to improve it.