[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140424223059.GE26890@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:30:59 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc: Andev <debiandev@...il.com>, "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 net-next 1/1] hyperv: Enable sendbuf mechanism on the
send path
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:06:24PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > From: Andev [mailto:debiandev@...il.com]
> > Your use of goto exit/cleanup in some functions and returning directly on
> > errors in others could use a cleanup. Please consider doing that while you are
> > touching those files.
>
> Will do. The most recent changes I made to netvsc.c, I think was
> consistent with the existing code; going forward we will certainly
> move towards a more consistent coding style.
It scares me when you talk about being consistent with the existing
code... Just do it the correct way.
1) Don't do the "return ret;" if you know ret is zero.
2) Replace:
ret = vmbus_sendpacket(...);
return ret;
with
return vmbus_sendpacket(...);
3) Don't do "goto cleanup;" when "return ret;" will suffice. The
do-nothing goto is misleading because you assume it will cleanup
somthing. Some people used to misread CodingStyle to think that all
functions should only have one return but I have updated it so it is
more clear.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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