[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150513144937.67e7e383@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:49:37 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] checkpatch: complain about GW-BASIC style label
names
On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:16:13 +0200
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> > checkpatch. The warnings look like:
> >
> > WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names
> > #267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267:
> > + fail2: snd_ctl_remove(chip->card, beep_ctl);
> >
> > This generates slightly under 2000 new warnings. None of them are
> > false positives.
>
> Please whitelist fs/btrfs/* from this type of checkpatch warning.
If you could whitelist the rest of the kernel too that would also be
useful.
There's nothing wrong with driver code that ends
fail_3:
xxx
fail_2:
yyy
fail_1:
blah
return;
if anything it makes it very clear which level of unravelling on error is
occurring and at a glance enables you to see that the error handling is
ordered properly.
--
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