Re: [PATCH 3/3] cleanup: Drop pointless label at end of function

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:21:20PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Corey Minyard <corey@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!"