On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:22:02 +0200 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 25-10-17 18:15, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a single unlock call > >> at the end, not a separate one in in error label. > > > > Thanks for your update suggestion. > > > > Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments > > in this software area? > > > > > >> Could e.g. change this: > >> > >> ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false); > >> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex); > >> if (ret < 0) > >> return ret; > >> > >> return IIO_VAL_INT; > >> } > >> > >> To: > >> > >> ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false); > >> if (ret < 0) > >> goto unlock; > >> > >> ret = IIO_VAL_INT; > > If that is the only unlock in the function, then it is probably > best to keep things as is. In general gotos are considered > better then multiple unlocks, but not having either is even > better. > > > > How do you think about to use the following code variant then? > > > > if (!ret) > > ret = IIO_VAL_INT; > > > I believe the goto unlock variant and setting ret = IIO_VAL_INT; > directly above the unlock label variant is better, because that > way the error handling is consistent between all steps and if > another step is later added at the end, the last step will > not require modification. I agree, setting ret = IIO_VAL_INT in the good path unconditionally is good. However, it is not just the unlocking that would be nice to unify here. The call to: bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false); occurs in both the final two error paths and the good path. An additional label and appropriate gotos would clean that up as well. This driver also suffers from issues with racing against the buffer enable check and buffers being enabled like I mentioned in the other email. Clearly more cases of that around than I realised! Patches welcome or I'll suggest it as an outreachy cleanup task. Jonathan > > >> unlock: > >> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex); > >> > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> And also use the unlock label in the other cases, this is actually > >> quite a normal pattern. I see little use in a patch like this if there > >> are still 2 unlock paths after the patch. > > > > How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small > > source code adjustment will be appropriate? > > That is hard to say. I usually just do a new version when I've time, > seldomly someone complains I should have waited longer for feedback > (when I'm quite quick) but usually sending out a new version as soon > as you've time to work on a new version is best, since if you wait > you may then not have time for the entire next week or so, at least > that is my experience :) There is really no clear rule here. > > Regards, > > Hans > -- 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
