From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:07:54 +0000 Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] ALSA: pcsp: Use common error handling code in snd_card_pcsp_probe() Message-Id: List-Id: References: <08ee0d6b-788b-2845-6964-e1e55c2d2292@users.sourceforge.net> <20170822121625.syvr64kwyh5xjexg@mwanda> <139363f6-e059-defb-357e-f18645ba9768@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Dan Carpenter On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:03:00 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > >> * I find it a bit safer when the error predicate is “return value != 0”. > > > > Can't agree. > > How do you think about to reduce the probability that positive return values > will accidentally be interpreted as a successful function execution. It's not zero. > > And I have no interest to continue bike-shedding, sorry. > > I do not like that you prefer to put this technical detail into such > a communication category. > > > > You can't convince me regarding this. > > Would you still like to integrate the proposed refactoring with the use > of previous failure predicates then? That's fine. But, please don't forget what others already mentioned. For example, Joe Perches suggested to put a blank line before the label for your patches. But you completely ignored it and did the same again. thanks, Takashi