Hi, On 10/15/19 7:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:04:28PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: >> From: kbuild test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; >> >> drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c:783:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function 'is_protocol_err' with return type bool >> >> Return statements in functions returning bool should use >> true/false instead of 1/0. >> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolreturn.cocci >> >> Fixes: 46946163ac61 ("can: m_can: add support for handling arbitration error") >> CC: Pankaj Sharma <pankj.sharma(a)samsung.com&gt; >> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; >> --- >> >> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Pankaj-Sharma/can-m_can-add-supp... >> >> m_can.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> --- a/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.c >> @@ -780,9 +780,9 @@ static inline bool is_lec_err(u32 psr) >> static inline bool is_protocol_err(u32 irqstatus) >> { >> if (irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X) >> - return 1; >> + return true; >> else >> - return 0; >> + return false; >> } >> >> static int m_can_handle_protocol_error(struct net_device *dev, u32 irqstatus) >> > <2c> > Perhaps the following is a nicer way to express this (completely untested): > > return !!(irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X); > </2c> Really...., !! for bool / _Bool types? why not simply: static inline bool is_protocol_err(u32 irqstatus) return irqstatus & IR_ERR_LEC_31X; }