From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752353AbeCMJbj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:31:39 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:47259 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751975AbeCMJbi (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:31:38 -0400 Subject: Re: hwmon/sch5627: Use common error handling code in sch5627_probe() To: Hans de Goede , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org Cc: =?UTF-8?B?R8O8bnRlciBSw7Zjaw==?= , Jean Delvare , Jonathan Cameron , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML References: <0cc0ab31-550b-fa34-aaa5-164f6ae7f7a9@redhat.com> <17810b74-7b72-074e-5fef-b614fcfed738@users.sourceforge.net> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <4e0856d8-3b2c-35f0-50a5-bfbe34615dfa@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:30:32 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:10LFJeklu7eHWUOxzPlZC/fg7ZNBzBaknHOisVxR+7W1Syqyrto OQY+ZDPENm0+cXSyU4HsTS+p8D+t6srf30gbOGD6UuE827nYXNTAYZGdeYeSg7Hen+KGzqL FVfgXZ2QQ8UGTzugTHZcmRtcFFhSFCMUSgy3wOgny+erEjpJsUCG/kyw82b3E1kZXSE+Ae7 Sn0uYw63SOtS0HI1c6R7w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:uJLC7GIYscU=:JObwwJ1C2BkrX7884mtf8J 0QbbI/NHlSuQ+ikqPxtUOFJtsXWTSO8gpPkccBPDJsVQm8WNR10wjq4QZQKz/4kOxwJYPNkof jxSfYvh/CxT8vuCt1+JDiJDrjpsDm8AvY3JBToJcrtBsa7Ueiv7ODtolnDDt8tIUo/fcaZu7q CIFcVGq1UfsBdwCX3xzy9nfoExAvS1UGm/UYXPRfcJMlU55t/DJdEScpvzhV5eMzjmDzXVDB1 Z6Hl85KNbQF6E7SWbE5UZDOTQ0mYqIQa24wZbB6xQTB4Lyb+gRiqlSEPEDzdQJD3yDbk01CM7 A8/Ru0+vVPaR/vFZGzYcm+dgjacYKDsZcpMCUVsnmkVwilgZdf1/PZ+eRnozUiHVv224Xoy93 RfR7I3ls3Rm1/JyBrctZfXzMaLCwhVAKoRVtLA3mrR6z5lu8rTPgjoV9dNiR97/9Ou7F1Jez5 fj5lYk/whwQcQqdf/fdRWuYi1F2YRS9hK59QWEZQ4nLAHCG4gosyQjoTrZWg5btLHOdQ/KJIZ V/c5p0WiCId18qd/+VWqbuQrsaiz3gdyI9nKO4gdO9suTi/DSB5JzVh0lGMw9UnnOFLvQEpw2 FXkj+CT1IBNn1zkThdqf/Bf9Sv7dsGmBJY01dmh3VrS9zL6Os0VrMkGoq5pxaRyAo1u7ZFu2C SFBF9n+CJJ8tbAKxaEF32tWqRbA0PYROlamA5BZLrN4srf9nRPckChbKqd9LPzwaJyiLXzs8n SPjw1iy+U2ze5fzBrRQ0fgdiggPb5eyUCY8foeRZlQa4f3yPPsJLduirY0m3Wertf5o1cAoyy 5FTJnUDLFLlpBYfLdvdcddWZwKvo57pCVj3kK4fsUS2e9WDy2M= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > So you are asking people to review 60 changed lines to save 2, A bit of object code reduction might become useful also in this case. > that alone should be the point where you stop yourself from > *even* sending this patch. I proposed just another collateral evolution. > Next time before you send a patch please carefully think if the > saving is worth the combination of reviewers time + the risk of > regressions (and keep in mind that both the reviewers time and > the risk of regressions cost increase for more complex changes). Source code transformations were integrated in other software areas according to such a change pattern. > As for this specific discussion, there are certain "design-patterns" > in the kernel, goto style error handling is one of them, the pattern > there ALWAYS is: … > Notice the fall-thoughs those are ALWAYS there, never, ever is > there a goto after a cleanup label. It seems that I present an unusual update suggestion as a software design variant. > Your patches black goto magic completely messes this up You can view the proposal in such a way. > and clearly falls under the CS101 rule: never use goto. There might a target conflict with information from the section “7) Centralized exiting of functions” in the document “coding-style.rst”. Regards, Markus