On Wed, 04 Jul 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:26:00AM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del
> > > dia dv., 29 de juny 2018 a les 11:47:
> > >
> > > Now that you use devm calls and you don't need to unwind things I
> > > think is better to use plain returns. So,
> > >
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > I have never really understood why use of gotos in error handling is
> > discouraged.
They're not.
> > Personally I would always choose single point of exit from
> > a function when it is simple enough to achieve (like in this case). I've
> > written and fixed way too many functions which leak resources or
> > accidentally keep a lock when exiting from error branches. But I know
> > many colleagues like you who prefer not to have gotos but in place returns
> > instead. So I guess I'll leave the final call on this to the one who is
> > maintainer for this code. And it is true there is no things to unwind
> > now - which does not mean that next updater won't add such. But as I
> > said, I know plenty of people share your view - and even though I rather
> > maintain code with only one exit the final call is on subsystem maintainer
> > here.
Please use gotos in the error path.
IMO, it's the nicest way to unwind (as you call it).
> Actually, If it was completely my call the probe would look something
> like this:
>
> +static int bd71837_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> + const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
> + struct bd71837 *bd71837;
> + struct bd71837_board *board_info;
> + int gpio_intr = 0;
> +
> + const char *errstr = "No IRQ configured";
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + bd71837 = devm_kzalloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(struct bd71837), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (bd71837 == NULL)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + board_info = dev_get_platdata(&i2c->dev);
> +
> + if (!board_info)
> + gpio_intr = i2c->irq;
> + else
> + gpio_intr = board_info->gpio_intr;
> +
> + if (!gpio_intr)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, bd71837);
> + bd71837->dev = &i2c->dev;
> + bd71837->i2c_client = i2c;
> + bd71837->chip_irq = gpio_intr;
> +
> + errstr = "regmap initialization failed";
> +
> + bd71837->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &bd71837_regmap_config);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(bd71837->regmap);
> + if (IS_ERR(bd71837->regmap))
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + errstr = "Read BD71837_REG_DEVICE failed";
> + ret = bd71837_reg_read(bd71837, BD71837_REG_REV);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + errstr = "Failed to add irq_chip";
> + ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&i2c->dev, bd71837->regmap,
> + bd71837->chip_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT, 0,
> + &bd71837_irq_chip, &bd71837->irq_data);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + errstr = "Failed to configure button short press timeout";
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(bd71837->regmap,
> + BD71837_REG_PWRONCONFIG0,
> + BD718XX_PWRBTN_PRESS_DURATION_MASK,
> + BD718XX_PWRBTN_SHORT_PRESS_10MS);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + /* According to BD71847 datasheet the HW default for long press
> + * detection is 10ms. So lets change it to 10 sec so we can actually
> + * get the short push and allow gracefull shut down
> + */
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(bd71837->regmap,
> + BD71837_REG_PWRONCONFIG1,
> + BD718XX_PWRBTN_PRESS_DURATION_MASK,
> + BD718XX_PWRBTN_LONG_PRESS_10S);
> +
> + errstr = "Failed to configure button long press timeout";
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + btns[0].irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(bd71837->irq_data,
> + BD71837_INT_PWRBTN_S);
> +
> + errstr = "Failed to get the IRQ";
> + ret = btns[0].irq;
> + if (btns[0].irq < 0)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + errstr = "Failed to create subdevices";
> + ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(bd71837->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> + bd71837_mfd_cells,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(bd71837_mfd_cells), NULL, 0,
> + regmap_irq_get_domain(bd71837->irq_data));
> + if (ret) {
> +err_out:
> + if (errstr)
> + dev_err(&i2c->dev, "%s (%d)\n", errstr, ret);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
>
> What do you think of this? To my eye it is nice. It keeps single point of
> exit and introduces only simple if-statements without the need of curly
> brackets. And finally the error prints string works as a comment too.
> I've seen bunch of constructs like this on the networking side but I
> have no idea if this is frowned on this subsystem =) Oh, and probe abowe
> is just to illustrate the idea, I did not even try compiling it yet.
That is horrible. I nearly vomited on my keyboard. It doesn't flow
anywhere nearly as nicely has sorting out all of the error handling
*after* it has been detected. You're sacrificing readability to save
a single line and do not save any *actual* lines of code, only a brace.
Landing a goto in the middle of a statement is messy and unsightly.
What happens when you have some resources to free? The last few lines
will become very messy, very quickly.
Nit: "something == NULL" is better written as "!something".
Nit: Please use proper multi-line comments as per the Coding Style.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
