[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130418134145.GB2767@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:41:45 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Opensource [Anthony Olech]" <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CodingStyle
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:48:06AM +0000, Opensource [Anthony Olech] wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guenter Roeck [mailto:linux@...ck-us.net]
> > Sent: 18 April 2013 05:14
> > To: Opensource [Anthony Olech]
> > Cc: Jean Delvare; Mark Brown; Randy Dunlap; lm-sensors@...sensors.org;
> > LKML; David Dajun Chen
> > Subject: Re: [NEW DRIVER V5 6/7] drivers/hwmon: DA9058 HWMON driver
> >
> [...]
> > > + if (cell == NULL) {
> > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > + goto exit;
> >
> > Just return -ENODEV is good enough here. See CodingStyle, chapter 7.
> >
> [...]
> > > +exit:
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> [...]
>
> Hi Guenter,
>
> I have read CodingStyle, chapter 7 and it seems to encourage a single exit point from functions.
>
Yes, unless you can return directly. There is even an example.
It actually says "... and some common work such as cleanup has to be done".
> During development there was some logging done at the (single) exit point but that has been stripped out for submission.
> Whilst I can duplicate the logging and do an immediate 'return' at all those points, I am hesitant to do so when chapter 7 of the CodingStyle appears to say to use a single exit point. In addition I had thought that a single exit point from functions was a good thing.
>
Not if you add a goto to a return statement. That defeats the purpose
of easy readability.
Guenter
--
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