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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190318085733.3143-1-duyuyang@gmail.com> <20190318085733.3143-20-duyuyang@gmail.com>
 <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:02:07 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHttsrbm_rWkMHDUqiSV+74ctRYB2ymkT9JbgWsFfvCxXP4yqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] locking/lockdep: Change if to else-if when
 checking bfs errors
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the review.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 00:29, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> 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"

I didn't. And, these changes were done in a row; my not checking each
of them was careless.

Thanks,
Yuyang