On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:49:01PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Corey Minyard <co...@minyard.net> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:21:20PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Corey Minyard <co...@minyard.net> writes: > >> > >> > Is this official coding style? I'm not a big fan of having return > >> > statements in the middle of functions, I generally only put them at > >> > the beginning or the end. > >> > >> There's nothing in docs/devel/style.rst. > >> > >> I count more than 42,000 return statements with indentation > 4. These > >> are either within some block, or incorrectly indented. I'd bet my own > >> money that it's the former for pretty much all of them. > >> > >> I count less than 130 labels right before a return statement at end of a > >> function. > >> > >> Based on that, I'd say return in the middle of function is > >> overwhelmingly common in our code. > >> > > > > Ok. It's not a huge deal to me. I think it's more dangerous to > > have returns in the middle; they are easy to miss and an "out:" at the > > end make it more clear there are returns in the middle. But that's > > just my opinion. To make wholesale changes like this I would prefer > > it be in the style guide. But, I don't want to start a holy war, > > either. Sigh. > > > > I mean, just a "return;" at the end of a function, yes, that's a > > no-brainer, get rid of it. But that's not what the ones in the IPMI > > device are. > > Well, you're the maintainer there. If you'd like me to drop the five > cases where return is directly after a label (all in hw/ipmi), I can do > that for the low, low price of a "yes, please!" >
No, I'm fine, I woudl just like it in the style guide. Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com>
