[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d9ce49fe-4aab-2138-3ecc-86fa825120fa@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:36:17 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TILCDC: Less function calls in
tilcdc_convert_slave_node() after error detection
> I think the "if (node)" in the of_node_put() is there on purpose,
Yes, of course.
Does such an implementation detail correspond to a general software design pattern?
> because it potentially saves the caller one extra if()-statement
This can occasionally happen.
> and keeps the caller code simpler.
A special view on software simplicity can also lead to questionable intermediate
function implementation, can't it?
> Keeping the goto labels in right order needs precision
I can agree to this view.
> and can lead to subtle errors.
The management of jump labels is just another software development challenge
as usual, isn't it?
> Sometimes there is no way to avoid that,
How do you think about to clarify the constraints which you imagine a bit more?
> but here there is.
I disagree to this conclusion.
Would you like to care a bit more for efficiency and software correctness
around the discussed exception handling?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists