Stefani Seibold <stefani@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If it is necessary... So, why is it necessary for you to change this code *from* the style recommended by CodingStyle and LDD3? Quoting from LDD3: "Error recovery is sometimes best handled with the goto statement. We normally hate to use goto, but in our opinion, this is one situation where it is useful. Careful use of goto in error situations can eliminate a great deal of complicated, highly-indented, "structured" logic. Thus, in the kernel, goto is often used as shown here to deal with errors." > Compacting improves since it will make the code more readable. No, it does not. As pointed out, instead of having to follow a single exit path from each function, your changes makes it necessary to follow n exit paths. That does not make the code more readable, and it contradicts both CodingStyle and LDD3. Note that I am not stating in any way that those documents contain absolute truths and that you cannot write your own driver the way you like. I do however find it extremely strange that you insist on changing a coding example to be inconsistent with those documents. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you must see that such inconsistent guidelines will be a problem for anyone trying to use this code for learning? 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
