On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 06:27:39 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here > > Well, I prefer shorter ones. > >> To be constructive: >> out -> err_unlock >> out -> out_unlock or err_unlock (depends on context) >> >> >> > +out: >> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock); >> > + return error; >> >> > +out: >> > + mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock); >> >> > > So while I don't have a particular problem with appending the "_unlock" to the > "out", I'm not exactly sure why this would be an improvement. > > If that's just a matter of personal preference, then I would prefer to follow > my personal preference here, with all due respect. [And besides, it follows > the general style of this file which matters too IMO.] > > But if there's more to it, just please let me know. :-) "Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. An example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees ``buffer``. Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness difficult to verify anyway." -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
