Hey Dan,
On 15-03-2013 17:22, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:59:57AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
Change the way the omap_bandgap_power is written so that it has only
one exit entry (Documentation/CodingStyle).
It's only if there is an unlock or something that you should do
this. Otherwise the pointless bunny hop is misleading and annoying.
Well, if that is the case the Chapter 7 needs to be rewritten, don't you
think? The way it is stated, it is clear that it is a design decision to
use it for keeping only one exit point (quoting):
"Albeit deprecated by some people, the equivalent of the goto statement is
used frequently by compilers in form of the unconditional jump instruction.
The goto statement comes in handy when a function exits from multiple
locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done.
The rationale is:
- unconditional statements are easier to understand and follow
- nesting is reduced
- errors by not updating individual exit points when making
modifications are prevented
- saves the compiler work to optimize redundant code away ;)"
I believe this patch falls into at least three of the above rationale.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
