On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54:15PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32:17AM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > + > > + return error; > > This return path could be cleaned up a bit: > > error = input_register_device(input); > if (error) > input_free_device(input); > > return error; > > But, this driver uses this "error/return 0" pattern pretty consistently, whereas > most of the kernel uses ret instead of error, and will return ret on success and > failure, relying on it being 0 in the successful case. Over the whole driver, > we'd save several lines with the conversion and be more consistent with the rest > of the kernel. But, local consistency is important too. Jonathan, do you have a > preference for this driver? I have no strong preferences, except to say that clarity is important. As I eluded to a few minutes ago, I agree that there's scope to address error handling and there is a case to be made for bringing it into line with the rest of the kernel. I think this can be addressed in a separate patch series though. The present series under consideration doesn't make the situation any worse (it actually improves it in some places) and introduces worthwhile changes. As such I don't see that we gain anything by delaying it in order to address what is, at the end of the day, a separate concern. Regards jonathan
