okay, i see, thanks for your regards :) 2010/5/18 Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello, > > On (Tue) May 18 2010 [13:41:29], Steven Liu wrote: >> Hi, Amit, >> >> if 'err' initialised in this path, it needn't do err = -ENOMEM >> after,isn't it? > > What I mean is if we later add some code that just does: > > if (err) > goto fail; > > then 'ret' can be -ENOMEM, as it was initialised to, which would be > fine. But if a later patch adds something like: > > + ret = -EIO; > + err = ... > + if (err) > + goto fail; > + > err = ... > if (err) > goto fail; > > In this case, the 2nd if() would now return EIO instead of ENOMEM as > earlier. > > Also, this style of coding can prevent uninitialised usage of 'ret', eg: > > > int ret; > > if (err) > goto fail; > > fail: > return ret; > > In this case, the compiler will warn about 'ret' being used > uninitialised. > > This is just a coding style issue. I had initially coded it the way your > patch does, but Rusty asked me to change that and I like this new style > better: there's less scope for surprises. > > Amit > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
