On 13/06/06, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jesper Juhl wrote: Thanks Jesper! > On 12/06/06, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Update the char-dev initialization code to use modern 2.6 API, ala LDD3. >> > [snip] >> +extern void scx200_gpio_dump(unsigned index); >> + >> static ssize_t scx200_gpio_write(struct file *file, const char >> __user * data, >> size_t len, loff_t * ppos) > > Kernel coding style is "loff_t *ppos", not "loff_t * ppos" - I can see > why you are not making that change here as it would be unrelated, but > perhaps you could clean stuff like that up as well - either in your > first "spring clean" patch Ironically, it was scripts/Lindent that did that * ppos damage. :-/ I figured it was intended.
While scripts/Lindent is a good tool for beating messy code roughly into shape it's not perfect and the changes it makes need to be reviewed and hand modified.
>> + return rc; > > Here you return directly ... >
[snip]
>> + rc = -ENOMEM; >> + goto fail_malloc; > > But here you use a label at the end of the function. > Make up your mind, do you want the function to be 'single exit' or > 'multiple exit'? I'd suggest trying to be consistent (and single exit > is often nice). > IIRC, I returned cuz there was no undoing to do. But I see your point, and will regularize (with gotos).
There's no "this is always right" and "this is always wrong", it's always a judgement call, but generally, having single exit makes it easier to validate a function - but in some cases it doesn't make sense... I just pointed it out because it caught my eye, you deside what to do :) -- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
