Re: [PATCH] staging: unisys: use common return path

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:16:16AM -0500, Ben Romer wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 10:57 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >What I meant was that I'm generally opposed to "common exit paths".
> >Mixing all the exit paths together often makes the code more complicated
> >and leads to errors.  That makes sense from a common sense perspective
> >that doing many things is more difficult than doing one thing?  Anyway
> >it's easy enough to verify empirically that this style is bug prone.
> >
> >On the other hand there are times where all exit paths need to unlock or
> >to free a variable and in those cases using a common exit path makes
> >sense.  Just don't standardize on "Every function should only have a
> >single return".
> >
> 
> That works for me. Mainly my issue with it is that I've spent a lot
> of time trying to eliminate "goto Away" code from the drivers, so
> I'd rather not put any back if possible.

But what is wrong with goto?

Quoting from CodingStyle:
"The goto statement comes in handy when a function exits from multiple
locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done.  If there
is no cleanup needed then just return directly."

I am absolutely fine if you don't want it to be applied but just for
knowing - 
It has multiple exits.
In this case spin_unlock_irqrestore() is the common work.

regards
sudip
--
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/