On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:22:49PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:32:08AM -0400, Brian Masney wrote:
> > @@ -775,14 +778,20 @@ static ssize_t illuminance0_lux_table_store(struct device *dev,
> > goto luxable_store_done;
> > }
> >
> > - if (chip->taos_chip_status == TSL258X_CHIP_WORKING)
> > - taos_chip_off(indio_dev);
> > + if (chip->taos_chip_status == TSL258X_CHIP_WORKING) {
> > + ret = taos_chip_off(indio_dev);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> >
> > /* Zero out the table */
> > memset(taos_device_lux, 0, sizeof(taos_device_lux));
> > memcpy(taos_device_lux, &value[1], (value[0] * 4));
> >
> > - taos_chip_on(indio_dev);
> > + ret = taos_chip_on(indio_dev);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > ret = len;
> >
> > luxable_store_done:
>
>
> See, here you are adding direct returns in the middle of a single return
> function, and you promised yourself that you would never do that and it
> would mean that you never ever forgot to add error handling. But we're
> not even outside of the patchset yet and your complicated future
> proofing has already failed.
>
> You know you just want direct returns because that is the simplest way
> to program. "goto luxable_store_done;" What does that even mean? But
> "return -EINVAL;" is simple. It does one thing and it does it well.
>
> Go with your heart. My research says that the complicated single return
> functions are going to be buggier in the long run anyway so your heart
> is leading you on the right path.
Ok, I'll rework my patch series to stick with the direct returns. I
personally prefer that approach. I was using the gotos since I thought
that was standard convention in the kernel.
Brian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
