stefani@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> @@ -95,15 +93,12 @@ static int skel_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> if (!interface) {
> pr_err("%s - error, can't find device for minor %d\n",
> __func__, subminor);
> - retval = -ENODEV;
> - goto exit;
> + return -ENODEV;
> }
This may save you a line, but that line was there for a reason...
Using a common exit path for errors makes it easier to keep unlocking,
deallocation and other cleanups correct. Although you *can* do that
change now, you introduce future bugs here. Someone adding a lock
before this will now have to go through all the error paths to ensure
that they unlock before exiting.
See "Chapter 7: Centralized exiting of functions" in
Documentation/CodingStyle.
Most of this patch consists of this kind of bogus changes. I won't
comment on the rest of them.
Focus on creating a *good* example. Compacting the code is not
necessarily improving the code...
> /* verify that we actually have some data to write */
> - if (count == 0)
> - goto exit;
> + if (!count)
> + return 0;
zero-testing is discussed over and over again, and is a matter of
taste. But I fail to see how changing it can be part of a cleanup. It
just changes the flavour to suit another taste. What's the reason for
doing that?
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
