Re: [PATCH 3/3] cleanup: Drop pointless label at end of function

[Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net>]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:49:01PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:21:20PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Is this official coding style?  I'm not a big fan of having return
> >> > statements in the middle of functions, I generally only put them at
> >> > the beginning or the end.
> >> 
> >> There's nothing in docs/devel/style.rst.
> >> 
> >> I count more than 42,000 return statements with indentation > 4.  These
> >> are either within some block, or incorrectly indented.  I'd bet my own
> >> money that it's the former for pretty much all of them.
> >> 
> >> I count less than 130 labels right before a return statement at end of a
> >> function.
> >> 
> >> Based on that, I'd say return in the middle of function is
> >> overwhelmingly common in our code.
> >> 
> >
> > Ok.  It's not a huge deal to me.  I think it's more dangerous to
> > have returns in the middle; they are easy to miss and an "out:" at the
> > end make it more clear there are returns in the middle.  But that's
> > just my opinion.  To make wholesale changes like this I would prefer
> > it be in the style guide.  But, I don't want to start a holy war,
> > either.  Sigh.
> >
> > I mean, just a "return;" at the end of a function, yes, that's a
> > no-brainer, get rid of it.  But that's not what the ones in the IPMI
> > device are.
> 
> Well, you're the maintainer there.  If you'd like me to drop the five
> cases where return is directly after a label (all in hw/ipmi), I can do
> that for the low, low price of a "yes, please!"
> 

No, I'm fine, I woudl just like it in the style guide.

Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>