[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5687B2BC.8090901@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 12:21:32 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Arend van Spriel <aspriel@...il.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
libertas-dev@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net-libertas: Better exception handling in
if_spi_host_to_card_worker()
> I have never seen much evolution going on in this area.
I can get an other impression from a specific document for example.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/Documentation/CodingStyle
> What the patch tries to do is avoid the extra 'if (err)'.
Yes. - I propose to look at related consequences together with the usage
of a popular short jump label once more.
> Setting coding style aside, the question is whether there is
> a good metric for the patch.
A software development challenge is to accept changes also around a topic
like "error handling". My update suggestion for the source file
"drivers/net/wireless/marvell/libertas/if_spi.c" should only improve
exception handling. (I came along other source files where more improvements
will eventually be possible.)
When will the run-time behaviour matter also for exceptional situations?
> Did you look at the resulting assembly code for different target architectures?
Not yet. - Which execution system variants would you recommend for
further comparisons?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists