Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 13:56 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> > +out: >>> >>> CodingStyle suggests to do a better label naming. >> >> Names coming from specs are what they are. There is >> no place for coding style here. > > Yes, and how is it related to C label names? It did appear as if you were commenting on the case labels since you quoted two full switch blocks. That's how I read your comment as well. It's now clear that you somehow mean than "out:" is in conflict with CodingStyle. It is still very unclear how, and it does not seem like you intend to make it any clearer since you did not take the opportunity to explain yourself. FWIW, I read the CodingStyle recommendation as: use descriptive labels instead of "foo1", "foo2" etc, where "foo" is typically "err". I do not see this as conflicting with the use of "err" or "out" when there is a single such label in a function. The meaning of those labels are very clear IMHO. Exactly what is it about "out" that is unclear to you here? Could you propose a better alternative if you seriously mean that this needs to be changed? Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
