[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1372321107.24799.75.camel@smile>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:18:27 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
danders@...cuitco.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] minnowboard-gpio: Export MinnowBoard expansion GPIO
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 <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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