diff mbox

[trivial,2/3] vl: remove redundant local variable 'res'

Message ID 5343E571.60407@gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Chen Gang April 8, 2014, 12:02 p.m. UTC
In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly,
need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So
remove it to simplify code.

Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
---
 vl.c |    6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Peter Crosthwaite April 15, 2014, 2:13 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
> In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly,
> need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So
> remove it to simplify code.
>

Styling wise, there is a school of thought that functions should only
have one return statement which is probably the original authors
intention.

Regards,
Peter

> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
> ---
>  vl.c |    6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 7505002..377f962 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -1188,18 +1188,16 @@ DeviceState *get_boot_device(uint32_t position)
>  {
>      uint32_t counter = 0;
>      FWBootEntry *i = NULL;
> -    DeviceState *res = NULL;
>
>      if (!QTAILQ_EMPTY(&fw_boot_order)) {
>          QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_boot_order, link) {
>              if (counter == position) {
> -                res = i->dev;
> -                break;
> +                return i->dev;
>              }
>              counter++;
>          }
>      }
> -    return res;
> +    return NULL;
>  }
>
>  /*
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
Chen Gang April 15, 2014, 4:50 a.m. UTC | #2
On 04/15/2014 10:13 AM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly,
>> need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So
>> remove it to simplify code.
>>
> 
> Styling wise, there is a school of thought that functions should only
> have one return statement which is probably the original authors
> intention.
> 

Hmm... maybe.

For me, the readers' feeling (let code simple and easy understanding) is
more important than "school rules".

Welcome other members' styling tastes.

> Regards,
> Peter
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  vl.c |    6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index 7505002..377f962 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -1188,18 +1188,16 @@ DeviceState *get_boot_device(uint32_t position)
>>  {
>>      uint32_t counter = 0;
>>      FWBootEntry *i = NULL;
>> -    DeviceState *res = NULL;
>>
>>      if (!QTAILQ_EMPTY(&fw_boot_order)) {
>>          QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_boot_order, link) {
>>              if (counter == position) {
>> -                res = i->dev;
>> -                break;
>> +                return i->dev;
>>              }
>>              counter++;
>>          }
>>      }
>> -    return res;
>> +    return NULL;
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>

Thanks.
Markus Armbruster April 15, 2014, 8:43 a.m. UTC | #3
Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly,
>> need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So
>> remove it to simplify code.
>>
>
> Styling wise, there is a school of thought that functions should only
> have one return statement which is probably the original authors
> intention.

Plausible.  But what matters here is whether we think the patch is
worthwhile or not.

I find Chen's version a bit clearer, but I'm not sure it's worth the
churn.
Chen Gang April 15, 2014, 11:03 a.m. UTC | #4
On 04/15/2014 04:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly,
>>> need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So
>>> remove it to simplify code.
>>>
>>
>> Styling wise, there is a school of thought that functions should only
>> have one return statement which is probably the original authors
>> intention.
> 
> Plausible.  But what matters here is whether we think the patch is
> worthwhile or not.
> 
> I find Chen's version a bit clearer, but I'm not sure it's worth the
> churn.
> 

Hmm... after think of, for me, it will be fine to still remain the
original state, it is not quit worth to churn.


Thanks.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
index 7505002..377f962 100644
--- a/vl.c
+++ b/vl.c
@@ -1188,18 +1188,16 @@  DeviceState *get_boot_device(uint32_t position)
 {
     uint32_t counter = 0;
     FWBootEntry *i = NULL;
-    DeviceState *res = NULL;
 
     if (!QTAILQ_EMPTY(&fw_boot_order)) {
         QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_boot_order, link) {
             if (counter == position) {
-                res = i->dev;
-                break;
+                return i->dev;
             }
             counter++;
         }
     }
-    return res;
+    return NULL;
 }
 
 /*