linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta

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, 31 Jan 2015 22:48:01 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta_change()
 after error detection

>> +exit:
>>  	return err;
>>  }
> 
> Why do you use that exit label if it does nothing more than returning
> the error value? Also if nla_parse fails you dont use it but return the
> error directly. While using a label which is used only to return an
> error may be a matter of taste, its at least inconsistent to do both in
> a function, use such a label in one case and return immediately in
> another, isnt it?

I find that all these cases correspond to the current Linux coding
style documentation, doesn't it?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/