[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080324114518.07533af9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:45:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: adrian@...golddream.dyndns.info, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2/3 mtd: add support for flash on the SEGA Dreamcast
Visual Memory Unit
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:54:33 +0100
J__rn Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 March 2008 14:43:16 +0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> >
> > Well, I haven't got round to applying them and testing them yet, though
> > they look ok, obviously, except for one thing: I'm pretty much where you
> > are on the goto versus return thing, but got pretty clear instructions
> > on a previous patch from Andrew Morton that using gotos to ensure
> > functions limit the number of return points is the way to go.
> >
> > I've added him back in now we aren't exchanging flames, so maybe he can
> > pronouce ex cathedra.
>
> It is a matter of personal taste. Having a single return statement is
> nice when using a debugger. One can set a single breakpoint instead of
> ten. I guess that is why Andrew prefers it.
Experience has shown that over time, the multiple-return-point approach
leads to locking errors, resource leaks and to much duplicated
unlocking/freeing code.
Because when people add new locking and more dynamic allocations to the function
they need to hunt down each `return' and add unlocking/freeing code to it (this
is bad). And sometimes they miss one (this is worse).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists