Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <b2c2f344419156c75c6f58258cab6e7a60c2d4a9.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: checkpatch.pl warning for "return" with value
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@amd.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:25:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <8859753b-c7c9-78ec-20cc-ce424b436b13@amd.com>
References: <a1eea414-2422-3a9f-b9bb-1ab7d6113dd6@amd.com>
         <1a47c5c428968a0e1d0ac5b92ce7ebdd4014fd38.camel@perches.com>
         <8859753b-c7c9-78ec-20cc-ce424b436b13@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 14:52 -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Also checking and returning from a function, doesn't
> always have to be binary. It could be,
> 
> 	if (A) {
> 		...;
> 		return X;
> 	} else if (B) {
> 		...;
> 		return Y;
> 	} else {
> 		...;
> 		return Z;
> 	}
> }
> 
> And interestingly, checkpatch.pl doesn't complain for
> the triplet above. But if I remove condition B, above,
> it does complain.

My recollection is false positives existed so the
else if case was not wanted.