[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0487c19a-a662-1e74-cba7-12508a0b4307@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:40:25 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Eyal Reizer <eyalr@...com>, Iain Hunter <drhunter95@...il.com>,
James Minor <james.minor@...com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Maxim Altshul <maxim.altshul@...com>,
Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] wlcore: Use common error handling code in
wlcore_nvs_cb()
>> @@ -6551,6 +6549,11 @@ static void wlcore_nvs_cb(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
>> out:
>> release_firmware(fw);
>> complete_all(&wl->nvs_loading_complete);
>> + return;
>> +
>> +power_off:
>
> Name this "out_power_off" to match the other labels.
Do you expect a second approach for this patch series then?
>> + wl1271_power_off(wl);
>> + goto out_free_nvs;
>
> Why not put this in front of the out_free_nvs label?
It seems that I can not really follow this suggestion at the moment.
> It looks weird here.
Which detail do you not like?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists