On 12/03/14 14:24, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
Sorry. I misread your email. If the code looks like this:
foo = kmalloc();
if (!foo)
goto kmalloc_failed;
The "kmalloc_failed" doesn't add any information.
I find that this such a name approach would fit to your
expectation of a source-oriented labeling of these identifiers.
We can see that kmalloc failed from the context.
Which name pattern do you find more appropriate in such
an use case?
I think Dan wants the label to be descriptive about the tasks needed in
the exception handling itself. This makes sense as the exception
handling steps may be reused for different failures in the code.
void foo(void)
{
if (check_a())
goto do_bar;
sub_foo1();
if (checck_b())
goto do_bar;
sub_foo2();
return;
do_bar:
bar();
}
Regards,
Arend
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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
