[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5617C028.3040709@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:24:56 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clocksource/drivers/tango_xtal: Add new timer for
Tango SoCs
On 10/09/2015 02:13 PM, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> Sigma Designs Tango platforms provide a 27 MHz crystal oscillator.
> Use it for clocksource, sched_clock, and delay_timer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
> ---
> I have a nagging feeling that the QUIT_IF macro will get this patch NAKed ;-)
> My rationale: error-handling tends to take the focus away from the normal
> path, and put it on the error path. Hiding the details away in a macro
> helps to keep the error-handling noise to a minimum.
It is a right feeling :)
The Linux kernel code follows the same path all across the different
sub-systems. So it is not a problem to write: if (err) ..., people is
used to read such code and by introducing this macro, that makes the
code less readable for them.
Moreover, the way you wrote the macro is strongly discouraged in the
CodingStyle document because there is a 'return' inside.
-- DAniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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