> No one needs to argue about keeping it the way it is. I got an other impression in this case after a bit of information was presented which seems to be contradictory. > I don't see any improvement brought by the proposed change, Do you care if the source code for an error message is present only once in this function? > other than making the code harder to read. I suggest to reconsider this concern. > 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. I am looking also for change possibilities without such a restriction. > The same applies to dozens of patches you proposed recently. I proposed some software updates to reduce a bit of code duplication. Do you find any corresponding approaches useful? 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
