linux-kernel - Re: [media] spca500: Use common error handling code in spca500

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:44:23 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@...nta.net>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [media] spca500: Use common error handling code in
 spca500_synch310()

> No one needs to argue about keeping it the way it is.

I got an other impression in this case after a bit of information
was presented which seems to be contradictory.


> I don't see any improvement brought by the proposed change,

Do you care if the source code for an error message is present only once
in this function?


> other than making the code harder to read.

I suggest to reconsider this concern.


> I find goto statements hard to read, because they inherently make some
> information non local.  They are justified in error path handling,
> if the error path only unwinds what the function did early on.
> That's not the case here.

I am looking also for change possibilities without such a restriction.

 
> The same applies to dozens of patches you proposed recently.

I proposed some software updates to reduce a bit of code duplication.

Do you find any corresponding approaches useful?

Regards,
Markus