On 09/23/16 10:36, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I think the "if (node)" in the of_node_put() is there on purpose, > > Yes, of course. > > Does such an implementation detail correspond to a general software design pattern? > Yes it does. For instance standard malloc()/free() implementation [1]. > >> because it potentially saves the caller one extra if()-statement > > This can occasionally happen. > > >> and keeps the caller code simpler. > > A special view on software simplicity can also lead to questionable intermediate > function implementation, can't it? > I don't really follow. But in any case I do not see anything questionable in the current tilcdc_convert_slave_node() implementation. > >> Keeping the goto labels in right order needs precision > > I can agree to this view. > > >> and can lead to subtle errors. > > The management of jump labels is just another software development challenge > as usual, isn't it? > Yes. But usually it pays of to avoid complexity when possible. > >> Sometimes there is no way to avoid that, > > How do you think about to clarify the constraints which you imagine a bit more? > If the the of_node_put() behaviour would not be specified with null pointer as parameter, there would be such a constraint. I am beginning to have a feeling that this discussion is not going anywhere. > >> but here there is. > > I disagree to this conclusion. > > Would you like to care a bit more for efficiency and software correctness > around the discussed exception handling? > No, I would not. I think we have reached the bottom of this discussion. For the moment I have more important tasks to do. Best regards, Jyri [1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/free.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
