From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 net-next 1/1] hyperv: Enable sendbuf mechanism on the send path Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:30:59 +0300 Message-ID: <20140424223059.GE26890@mwanda> References: <1398288285-16268-1-git-send-email-kys@microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "olaf@aepfle.de" , Andev , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , LKML , "apw@canonical.com" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" To: KY Srinivasan Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06:24PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > From: Andev [mailto:debiandev@gmail.com] > > Your use of goto exit/cleanup in some functions and returning directly on > > errors in others could use a cleanup. Please consider doing that while you are > > touching those files. > > Will do. The most recent changes I made to netvsc.c, I think was > consistent with the existing code; going forward we will certainly > move towards a more consistent coding style. It scares me when you talk about being consistent with the existing code... Just do it the correct way. 1) Don't do the "return ret;" if you know ret is zero. 2) Replace: ret = vmbus_sendpacket(...); return ret; with return vmbus_sendpacket(...); 3) Don't do "goto cleanup;" when "return ret;" will suffice. The do-nothing goto is misleading because you assume it will cleanup somthing. Some people used to misread CodingStyle to think that all functions should only have one return but I have updated it so it is more clear. regards, dan carpenter