On 02-01-16 12:21, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I have never seen much evolution going on in this area. > > I can get an other impression from a specific document for example. > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/Documentation/CodingStyle > > >> What the patch tries to do is avoid the extra 'if (err)'. > > Yes. - I propose to look at related consequences together with the usage > of a popular short jump label once more. When I read a subject saying "Better exception handling" it sounds like a functional improvement. Your change does not change anything functionally and may or may not save a bit of execution time depending on how smart the compiler is. What you change does is confuse people reading the code. So please explain why your update improves exception handling here. I don't see it. The code is not making the driver more robust against failures in this function, which is what I think of reading "better exception handling". >> Setting coding style aside, the question is whether there is >> a good metric for the patch. > > A software development challenge is to accept changes also around a topic > like "error handling". My update suggestion for the source file > "drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/if_spi.c" should only improve > exception handling. (I came along other source files where more improvements > will eventually be possible.) > > When will the run-time behaviour matter also for exceptional situations? > > >> Did you look at the resulting assembly code for different target architectures? > > Not yet. - Which execution system variants would you recommend for > further comparisons? Guess x86{,_64} and arm would be good candidates, ie. CISC vs. RISC. Regards, Arend -- 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
