On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 01:21:08AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 09:24:51PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > I didn't check if it is easily possible, but converting this file to use > > platform_device_register_full might simplify it considerably. > > In a separate patch, though, please. Will consider another patch. > > > > > I'm not sure this fix is critical, because the problem happens if an > > allocation during boot fails. But still, if you want to get this fix > > into a stable release, you should simplify it, i.e. don't do the code > > reorganisations. (Also the "more clear" part seems to be subjective, I > > like the error handling better as it is now. But that might only be me.) > > Emil's error handling is done exactly in the correct way... The error > path and success path are separate. Unwinding in the reverse order. > The label names describe the label locations. Most days I spend hours > looking at linux kernel error handling and I can assure you that > sensible labels like this are a rare and wonderful gift. > > It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could defend the original error > handling. The label was "err". The error handling was randomly plopped > in the middle of the success handling. Whenever I see new "creative" > error handling like this it drives me nuts because obviously it's going > to be buggy like a swamp picnic. Thank you for the colorful reply, I guess there is no need for me to further defend my choice of labels :) Best regards, Emil Goode -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
