Am Donnerstag, den 07.06.2012, 11:06 +0200 schrieb Bjørn Mork:
> 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.
>
If it is necessary... I get alway ten different complains from six
developers. Developer A says do it in this way, developer B do it in the
other way.
> Focus on creating a *good* example. Compacting the code is not
> necessarily improving the code...
>
Compacting improves since it will make the code more readable.
>
>
> > /* 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?
>
Consistency - there are a lot places in the driver skeleton handling
this in the same way.
--
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
