linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 22 Jul 2017 00:19:51 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device_wakeup()

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 06:27:39 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:

>> I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here
>
> Well, I prefer shorter ones.
>
>> To be constructive:
>> out -> err_unlock
>> out -> out_unlock or err_unlock (depends on context)
>>
>>
>> > +out:
>> > +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);
>> > +       return error;
>>
>> > +out:
>> > +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);
>>
>>
>
> So while I don't have a particular problem with appending the "_unlock" to the
> "out", I'm not exactly sure why this would be an improvement.
>
> If that's just a matter of personal preference, then I would prefer to follow
> my personal preference here, with all due respect.  [And besides, it follows
> the general style of this file which matters too IMO.]
>
> But if there's more to it, just please let me know. :-)

"Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.  An
example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees
``buffer``.
Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to
renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness
difficult to verify anyway."

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko