Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Introduce _mv88e6xxx_phy_page_{read,write}

[Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>]

Hi Guenter,

Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes:

>>>>> Is there some good reason for changing the name of those labels ?
>>>>
>>>> Vivien suggested to rename this since it makes more clear that this write is
>>>> meant to return to page 0 to make sure that phylib doesn't get confused
>>>> about the currently active page.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And "clear:" accomplishes that ? I would not have guessed.
>>> Wonder if anyone else does. I would have used a comment.
>>> 	/* Try to return to page 0 even after an error */
>>> or something like that.
>>
>> "error" definitely doesn't make sense, especially in case of success. If
>> one has a better suggestion that "clear" for the label, I don't really
>> mind.
>
> Sounds like POV to me. I don't like changing label names, because someone
> else may come the next day and change it again. At the end, one ends up
> in a label name war. It also makes patches look more complicated than
> necessary, and it _is_ an unrelated change. I don't understand the
> problem with adding a comment, and using a label name in place of a
> comment seems odd to me.
>
> Anyway, this has all become philosophical, meaning I'll stay out of it.
> Pick whatever you want ...

Sorry I don't fully agree. There is no war or philosophical
concerns. "error" is just not correct here, this is not only an error
path. Why should we end up with a wrongly named label plus a comment,
when we can have a self documented function?

But I do agree that this change is not related. As the patch is moving
the core of these functions, it was just a good opportunity to rename
the label. I would understand and won't mind a very first 1/3 patch only
renaming the label. That might be a bit overkill however...

Thanks,
Vivien