On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:49:49PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > 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? I totally agree, the original style should be preserved. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
