From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts() after error detection Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:42:00 -0800 Message-ID: <1452199320.4028.46.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> <568ECCD3.1020700@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Richter , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sunil Goutham , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall To: SF Markus Elfring Return-path: In-Reply-To: <568ECCD3.1020700@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 21:38 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless > > of the number of exit points that any particular use of a > > specific function type. [] > > 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"? No. > > 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? Whatever the developer wants. There is no _best_ or _only_ style for this.