Em Fri, 4 May 2018 18:08:59 +0200 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > Adjust jump targets so that a bit of exception handling can be better > > reused at the end of these functions. > > Why was this update suggestion rejected once more a moment ago? > > https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/47827/ > lkml.kernel.org/r/<57ef3a56-2578-1d5f-1268-348b49b0c573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/9/823 Taking just the first diff there as an example: diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-core/dmxdev.c b/drivers/media/dvb-core/dmxdev.c index 61a750fae465..17d05b05fa9d 100644 --- a/drivers/media/dvb-core/dmxdev.c +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-core/dmxdev.c @@ -656,18 +656,18 @@ static int dvb_dmxdev_start_feed(struct dmxdev *dmxdev, tsfeed->priv = filter; ret = tsfeed->set(tsfeed, feed->pid, ts_type, ts_pes, timeout); - if (ret < 0) { - dmxdev->demux->release_ts_feed(dmxdev->demux, tsfeed); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + goto release_feed; ret = tsfeed->start_filtering(tsfeed); - if (ret < 0) { - dmxdev->demux->release_ts_feed(dmxdev->demux, tsfeed); - return ret; - } + if (ret < 0) + goto release_feed; return 0; + +release_feed: + dmxdev->demux->release_ts_feed(dmxdev->demux, tsfeed); + return ret; } There's *nothing* wrong with the above. It works fine, avoids goto and probably even produce the same code, as gcc will likely optimize it. It is also easier to review, as the error handling is closer to the code. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong on taking the approach you're proposing. In the end, using goto or not on error handling like the above is a matter of personal taste - and taste changes with time and with developer. I really don't have time to keep reviewing patches that are just churning the code just due to someone's personal taste. I'm pretty sure if I start accepting things like that, someone else would be on some future doing patches just reverting it, and I would be likely having to apply them too. So, except if the patch is really fixing something - e.g. a broken error handling code, I'll just ignore such patches and mark as rejected without further notice/comments from now on. Thanks, Mauro
