[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ce9f77e1-aeb6-65ac-9224-33e12d81d641@users.sourceforge.net>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists