From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 19:56:20 +0000 Subject: Re: staging: lustre: One function call less in class_register_type() after error detection Message-Id: <0f9ecc7c-f98a-0296-563b-6fcfab459c31@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net> <56784D83.7080108@users.sourceforge.net> <56784F0C.6040007@users.sourceforge.net> <20151221234857.GA27079@kroah.com> <59d94e70-7476-728e-5f63-013557ec2db9@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Oleg Drokin Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, Andreas Dilger , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall , Bhumika Goyal > But kobject_put() already checks for NULL, right? Yes. - Such an input parameter validation is performed by the function implementation. > you just submitted another batch about that in other area. I sent update suggestions because of this function property for two Linux software modules in the year 2015. >> Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention. > > Not that I am totally against this patch, Thanks for your feedback. > but when we do not need the extra checks, a single jump target is ok too in my mind A single goto label will look convenient for a while. It will often work for several use cases. > (extra benefit - there's not going to be any chance of a mistake to where to jump to). I have got an other opinion when you would like to care for a bit more software efficiency. > And when we have a single jump target, there's no supersmart naming > like free_this_and_that_and_that_other_thing_too. How often do you care for efficient exception handling in the shown function implementations? Regards, Markus