Re: [PATCH 02/13] code cleanup

[BjÃrn 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.

Most of this patch consists of this kind of bogus changes.  I won't
comment on the rest of them.

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



>  	/* 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?



BjÃrn
--
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/