From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <backports-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:55572 "EHLO mout.web.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751322AbaLCQBH (ORCPT <rfc822;backports@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:01:07 -0500
Message-ID: <547F33AC.50002@users.sourceforge.net> (sfid-20141203_170109_993398_2F71E9CF)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:00:44 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>
CC: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>, backports@vger.kernel.org,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CodingStyle: add some more error handling guidelines
References: <20141202085950.GA13434@mwanda> <547F0297.6030202@users.sourceforge.net> <20141203124511.GR5048@mwanda> <547F0977.7090908@users.sourceforge.net> <20141203132002.GT5048@mwanda> <547F0F2A.3060708@users.sourceforge.net> <547F1942.5060502@broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <547F1942.5060502@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Sender: backports-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <backports@vger.kernel.org>

>> Which name pattern do you find more appropriate in such
>> an use case?
> 
> I think Dan wants the label to be descriptive about the tasks
> needed in the exception handling itself.

I would usually prefer also such a target-oriented labelling
for the affected identifiers.
How are the chances to express an expectation in this direction
unambiguously for the proposed coding style update?


> This makes sense as the exception handling steps may be reused
> for different failures in the code.

I would stress a different reason from my point of view.

Regards,
Markus