Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/6] iio: sca3000: make stop_all_interrupts() return void

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 02:50:54PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> On 04/02/26 14:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:11:58PM -0800, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:

...

> > >   	ret = sca3000_read_data_short(st, SCA3000_REG_INT_MASK_ADDR, 1);
> > >   	if (ret)
> > > -		goto error_ret;
> > 
> > > -error_ret:
> > > +		goto out_unlock;
> > 
> > > +out_unlock:
> > 
> > While this is correct change semantically, it's not needed as very soon
> > the other patch drops this for good, hence leave the label name unmodified.
> 
> Agree, I was doubtful on which is the preferred approach as its not really a
> return anymore. But thanks for explaining.

The common sense says that we need to avoid ping-pong coding (*) in the series.

*It's when one patch in the series adds the code that's going to be deleted or
heavily modified just later in the very same series.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko