On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 09:21 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 10:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > + out: > > > + return err; > > > > Are you planning to add something else to 'out' path? > > Otherwise I think it will look better if you do return instead of > > [useless] gotos. > > I suppose this is a matter of preference. I am allergic to multiple > return points. However, your argument is consistent with CodingStyle > Chapter 7 in that it states "and some common work such as cleanup has to > be done." If that "and" is a required sort of &&, then I should change > it. Do others have a strong opinion here? There was recently similar discussion. Author finally agreed to change: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg252108.html "I did say in the changelog I opted for goto over return. But since everybody keeps preferring returns..." -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
