From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:38:43 +0100
Subject: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts() after
 error detection
In-Reply-To: <1452198530.4028.43.camel@perches.com>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5685A273.6070607@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20160107110701.GE25086@rric.localdomain>
 <568EBCE7.4060502@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1452195846.4028.24.camel@perches.com>
 <568EC2FD.9000702@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1452196790.4028.33.camel@perches.com> <568EC56A.402@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1452198530.4028.43.camel@perches.com>
Message-ID: <568ECCD3.1020700@users.sourceforge.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

> Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless
> of the number of exit points that any particular use of a
> specific function type.

This is another interesting view on involved implementation details.


> Some of your patches are converting these templatized
> functions to a different form for no added value.

Would you like to distinguish a bit more between my evolving
collection of update suggestions and the concrete proposal
for the function "nicvf_register_interrupts"?


> These patches make the local source code inconsistent
> and generally goes against the authors preferred style.

Which programming approach will be the leading one here finally?

Regards,
Markus