[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f9ecc7c-f98a-0296-563b-6fcfab459c31@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:56:20 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: staging: lustre: One function call less in class_register_type()
after error detection
> But kobject_put() already checks for NULL, right?
Yes. - Such an input parameter validation is performed by the
function implementation.
> you just submitted another batch about that in other area.
I sent update suggestions because of this function property for two
Linux software modules in the year 2015.
>> Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
>
> Not that I am totally against this patch,
Thanks for your feedback.
> but when we do not need the extra checks, a single jump target is ok too in my mind
A single goto label will look convenient for a while. It will often work
for several use cases.
> (extra benefit - there's not going to be any chance of a mistake to where to jump to).
I have got an other opinion when you would like to care for a bit
more software efficiency.
> And when we have a single jump target, there's no supersmart naming
> like free_this_and_that_and_that_other_thing_too.
How often do you care for efficient exception handling in the shown
function implementations?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists