From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove unnecessary return's Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:14:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20140213.181416.1185115361356253646.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20140213220021.GA1174@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davej@redhat.com, joe@perches.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: julia.lawall@lip6.fr Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:51205 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752317AbaBMXOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:14:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Julia Lawall Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:28:27 +0100 (CET) > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Dave Jones wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:55:23PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: >> >> > The patch below converts label: return; } to label: ; }. I have only >> > scanned through the patches, not patched the code and looked at the >> > results, so I am not sure that it is completely correct. On the other >> > hand, I'm also not sure that label: ; } is better than label: return; }, >> > either. If people think it is, then I can cheack the results in more >> > detail. >> >> Why not delete the label, and just replace the goto with a return if >> the label is at the end of the function ? > > Here is an example. Perhaps the uniformity of the if ... goto pattern is > valuable, though? I think it is valuable, it's so much easier to audit the return paths via a process of elimination with that kind of layout. A return in the middle of that looks out of place at best.