From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:31:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] staging: lustre: Rename a jump label for ptlrpc_req_finished() calls Message-Id: <20151214093121.GU5284@mwanda> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7884.5050407@users.sourceforge.net> <20151214065325.GS5284@mwanda> <566E86F3.9010209@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <566E86F3.9010209@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andreas Dilger , Greg Kroah-Hartman , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Oleg Drokin , Julia Lawall , lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:08:03AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Markus, please stop sending these things to rename out labels unless > > there is a bug. CodingStyle allows out labels. > > How does this feedback fit to information like the following? > > "… > Chapter 7: … > … > Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. A lot of people think "out" says what the goto does and why it exists. I personally don't agree with them but if you look at when I complain about it, it's almost always when it causes a bug. > … Avoid using GW-BASIC names … Those when people just use numbers for their label names instead of words like out1, out2, out4, out5. It's a different thing. regards, dan carpenter