Re: [media] spca500: Use common error handling code in spca500_synch310()

From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Fri Sep 22 2017 - 16:44:47 EST

> No one needs to argue about keeping it the way it is.

I got an other impression in this case after a bit of information
was presented which seems to be contradictory.

> I don't see any improvement brought by the proposed change,

Do you care if the source code for an error message is present only once
in this function?

> other than making the code harder to read.

I suggest to reconsider this concern.

> I find goto statements hard to read, because they inherently make some
> information non local. They are justified in error path handling,
> if the error path only unwinds what the function did early on.
> That's not the case here.

I am looking also for change possibilities without such a restriction.

> The same applies to dozens of patches you proposed recently.

I proposed some software updates to reduce a bit of code duplication.

Do you find any corresponding approaches useful?