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?