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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:15:54 +0200 From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: iio/accel/stk8312: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions > In the second case, the jump backwards just makes the code harder > to read than it currently is. Maybe … But I proposed an other source code layout for useful reasons. > There is no firm rule about error handling in one place. There are some design options available. > If it leads to more complex flow as here, don't do it. I would appreciate to clarify such a view a bit more. How would you like to achieve a complete and efficient exception handling in shown places? Regards, Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists