Re: [PATCH 02/13] code cleanup

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:49:49PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> writes:
> 
> > If it is necessary...
> 
> So, why is it necessary for you to change this code *from* the style
> recommended by CodingStyle and LDD3?
> 
> Quoting from LDD3:
> 
>  "Error recovery is sometimes best handled with the goto statement. We
>   normally hate to use goto, but in our opinion, this is one situation
>   where it is useful. Careful use of goto in error situations can
>   eliminate a great deal of complicated, highly-indented, "structured"
>   logic. Thus, in the kernel, goto is often used as shown here to deal
>   with errors."
> 
> > Compacting improves since it will make the code more readable.
> 
> No, it does not.  As pointed out, instead of having to follow a single
> exit path from each function, your changes makes it necessary to follow
> n exit paths.  That does not make the code more readable, and it
> contradicts both CodingStyle and LDD3.
> 
> Note that I am not stating in any way that those documents contain
> absolute truths and that you cannot write your own driver the way you
> like.  I do however find it extremely strange that you insist on
> changing a coding example to be inconsistent with those documents.
> Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you must see that such
> inconsistent guidelines will be a problem for anyone trying to use this
> code for learning?

I totally agree, the original style should be preserved.

thanks,

greg k-h