Re: [PATCH 02/13] code cleanup

[Stefani Seibold]

Am Donnerstag, den 07.06.2012, 11:06 +0200 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
> stefani@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> 
> > @@ -95,15 +93,12 @@ static int skel_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >  	if (!interface) {
> >  		pr_err("%s - error, can't find device for minor %d\n",
> >  			__func__, subminor);
> > -		retval = -ENODEV;
> > -		goto exit;
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> >  	}
> 
> 
> This may save you a line, but that line was there for a reason...
> 
> Using a common exit path for errors makes it easier to keep unlocking,
> deallocation and other cleanups correct.  Although you *can* do that
> change now, you introduce future bugs here.  Someone adding a lock
> before this will now have to go through all the error paths to ensure
> that they unlock before exiting.
> 
> See "Chapter 7: Centralized exiting of functions" in
> Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 

If it is necessary... I get alway ten different complains from six
developers. Developer A says do it in this way, developer B do it in the
other way.

> Focus on creating a *good* example.  Compacting the code is not
> necessarily improving the code...
> 

Compacting improves since it will make the code more readable.

> 
> 
> >  	/* verify that we actually have some data to write */
> > -	if (count == 0)
> > -		goto exit;
> > +	if (!count)
> > +		return 0;
> 
> zero-testing is discussed over and over again, and is a matter of
> taste. But I fail to see how changing it can be part of a cleanup.  It
> just changes the flavour to suit another taste.  What's the reason for
> doing that?
> 

Consistency - there are a lot places in the driver skeleton handling
this in the same way.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/