linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 22 Jul 2017 00:31:14 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device_wakeup()

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 12:19:51 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 21, 2017 06:27:39 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:

>> >> I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here

...

>> > But if there's more to it, just please let me know. :-)
>>
>> "Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.  An
>> example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees
>> ``buffer``.
>> Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to
>> renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness
>> difficult to verify anyway."
>
> This is a totally made-up argument in this particular case.
>
> Both of the functions in question are 1 screen long and you can *see* what
> happens in there without even scrolling them.
>
> Second, the subsequent patch actually *does* add a label to one of the without
> renamling the existing one or such.
>
> "out" pretty much represents the purpose of the goto in both cases and making
> the label longer doesn't make it any better.

That's why I put "though it's a minor here".

You can read my first message as "you might consider change label
names if you like the idea".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko