From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] minnowboard-gpio: Export MinnowBoard expansion GPIO Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:18:27 +0300 Message-ID: <1372321107.24799.75.camel@smile> References: <1372233328.24799.48.camel@smile> <1372263718.8177.74.camel@envy.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:28877 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752741Ab3F0ISh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:18:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1372263718.8177.74.camel@envy.home> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Darren Hart Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, danders@circuitco.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, Matthew Garrett , Grant Likely , Linus Walleij , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 09:21 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 10:55 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > + out: > > > + return err; > > > > Are you planning to add something else to 'out' path? > > Otherwise I think it will look better if you do return instead of > > [useless] gotos. > > I suppose this is a matter of preference. I am allergic to multiple > return points. However, your argument is consistent with CodingStyle > Chapter 7 in that it states "and some common work such as cleanup has to > be done." If that "and" is a required sort of &&, then I should change > it. Do others have a strong opinion here? There was recently similar discussion. Author finally agreed to change: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg252108.html "I did say in the changelog I opted for goto over return. But since everybody keeps preferring returns..." -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy