On 9/22/17 11:46 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>>> They are both equally uninformative. >>> >>> Which identifier would you find appropriate there? >> >> error was fine. > > How do the different views fit together? You want to change something. Changing something requires to spend energy. You need to to justify why spending that energy is a good thing. No one needs to argue about keeping it the way it is. What about stopping changing code for the sake of having one more patch accepted in the kernel? I don't see any improvement brought by the proposed change, other than making the code harder to read. I find goto statements hard to read, because they inherently make some information non local. They are justified in error path handling, if the error path only unwinds what the function did early on. That's not the case here. The same applies to dozens of patches you proposed recently. By the way, there may be some useful absent minded code churn of the king you like in that driver: I don't think the PERR macro is the idiomatic way of doing logging. Cheers, Daniele -- 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
