On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 11:18 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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..."
OK, I'll fix that up in V2 and use that model in the future. Thank you for being persistent. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
