From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965210AbbEMNsL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2015 09:48:11 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:49345 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933630AbbEMNsJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2015 09:48:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 16:47:52 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: dsterba@suse.cz, Andy Whitcroft , Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch v2] checkpatch: complain about GW-BASIC style label names Message-ID: <20150513134752.GC8431@mwanda> References: <1431029858.18597.35.camel@perches.com> <20150513123712.GA2798@mwanda> <20150513131613.GI23255@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150513131613.GI23255@twin.jikos.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org You misunderstand. Although I am famous for hating out: labels, I would not introduce a checkpatch warning to complain about it. This only complains about GW-BASIC labels. out3: kfree(foo); out2: kfree(bar); out: kfree(baz); GW-BASIC label suck because they are meaningless and lazy and, if you introduce a new warning in the middle, then you have to rename them all. In btrfs this only complains about the following two sections of code: fs/btrfs/compression.c 732 733 fail2: 734 while (faili >= 0) { 735 __free_page(cb->compressed_pages[faili]); 736 faili--; 737 } 738 739 kfree(cb->compressed_pages); 740 fail1: 741 kfree(cb); 742 out: 743 free_extent_map(em); 744 return ret; 745 } fs/btrfs/sysfs.c 742 743 return 0; 744 out2: 745 debugfs_remove_recursive(btrfs_debugfs_root_dentry); 746 out1: 747 kset_unregister(btrfs_kset); 748 749 return ret; 750 } regards, dan carpenter