Em Tue, 19 May 2015 19:00:50 +0300 Antti Palosaari <crope@xxxxxx> escreveu: > On 05/19/2015 03:17 PM, Michael Büsch wrote: > > On Tue, 19 May 2015 08:05:56 -0400 (EDT) > > Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/lgs8gxx.c > >>> b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/lgs8gxx.c > >>> index 3c92f36ea5c7..9b0166cdc7c2 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/lgs8gxx.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/lgs8gxx.c > >>> @@ -544,11 +544,7 @@ static int lgs8gxx_set_mpeg_mode(struct lgs8gxx_state > >>> *priv, > >>> t |= clk_pol ? TS_CLK_INVERTED : TS_CLK_NORMAL; > >>> t |= clk_gated ? TS_CLK_GATED : TS_CLK_FREERUN; > >>> > >>> - ret = lgs8gxx_write_reg(priv, reg_addr, t); > >>> - if (ret != 0) > >>> - return ret; > >>> - > >>> - return 0; > >>> + return lgs8gxx_write_reg(priv, reg_addr, t); > >>> } > >> > >> Personally I prefer the current style because it's more consistent with all > >> the other calls in the same function (return ret when ret != 0). > >> > >> It also allows you to easily add/remove calls without having to deal with > >> the last special case return my_last_fun_call(...). > >> > >> Anyway it's not a big deal, I think it's your call. > > > > > > I agree. I also prefer the current style for these reasons. The compiler will also generate the same code in both cases. > > I don't think it really simplifies the code. > > But if you really insist on doing this change, go for it. You get my ack for fc0011 > > > I am also against that kind of simplifications. Even it reduces line or > two, it makes code more inconsistent, which means you have to make extra > thinking when reading that code. Actually, it simplifies the thinking: less lines to read and the function return code is clearly defined. > I prefer similar repeating patterns as > much as possible. > > This is how I do it usually, even there is that extra last goto. > > ret = write_reg(); > if (ret) > goto err; > > ret = write_reg(); > if (ret) > goto err; > err: > return ret; > }; Nah, the above sucks: it is just hiding the return if error. Having to go until the end of a function to see what "err" would do is not good. Ok, if you have to deallocate things, do mutex unlock, etc, it is justifiable. However, in this case, it is quite a deception to discover that, after going all the way down the code, "err" is just do-nothing-but-return. The above code is exactly why several academic professors forbid the usage of goto: the code can easily become hard to read if you use lots of goto, instead of using structured loops and returns. Regards, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
