Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> >> Move the jump label directly before the desired log statement >> >> so that the variable "err" will not be checked once more >> >> after it was determined that a function call failed. >> >> Use the identifier "report_failure" instead of the label "err". >> > >> > Why? >> >> I suggest to reconsider the places with which such a jump label >> is connected. >> >> >> > The code was smart enough >> >> Which action should really be performed after a failure was detected >> and handled a bit already? >> >> * Another condition check >> >> * Just additional error logging >> >> >> > and you're making it uglier that it needs to be. >> >> I assume that a software development taste can evolve, can't it? > > So far, you have gotten several down votes for this kind of change, and no > enthusiasm. > > Admittedly, this is a trivial case, because there are no local variables, > but do you actually know the semantics in C of a jump into a block? And > if you do know, do you think that this semantics is common knowledge? And > do you really think that introducing poorly understandable code is really > worth saving an if test of a single variable on a non-critical path? > > Most of the kernel code is not performance critical at the level of a > single if test. So the goal should be for the code to be easy to > understand and robust to change. The code that is performance critical, > you should probably not touch, ever. The people who wrote it knew what > was important and what was not. Very well said! Only optimise something you can measure. I'm dropping this patch. -- Kalle Valo -- 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
