>> Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document "CodingStyle" >> like the following? >> >> "… >> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. >> …" >> >> >> Does this wording need any more adjustments? > > No. I have got an other impression. The terse description can trigger disagreements about the "what" and "why", can't it? > I wrote that and "restart" seems like a pretty clear name to me. This identifier might be good enough to some degree. I imagined that it would become better by the addition of a bit of information from the jump target. > I never wrote that you should harrass people with your nonsense patches. This is true in principle. But your adjustment for the document "CodingStyle" supported also a reconsideration of the corresponding identifier selection. Some developers disagreed with a proposed renaming while others reacted in a positive way. > In fact, I have asked you over and over again to stop. This happened under different software update contexts occasionally. Regards, Markus -- 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
