linux-kernel - Re: hwmon/sch5627: Use common error handling code in sch5627

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

Message-ID: <4e0856d8-3b2c-35f0-50a5-bfbe34615dfa@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:30:32 +0100
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Günter Röck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hwmon/sch5627: Use common error handling code in sch5627_probe()

>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> So you are asking people to review 60 changed lines to save 2,

A bit of object code reduction might become useful also in this case.


> that alone should be the point where you stop yourself from
> *even* sending this patch.

I proposed just another collateral evolution.


> Next time before you send a patch please carefully think if the
> saving is worth the combination of reviewers time + the risk of
> regressions (and keep in mind that both the reviewers time and
> the risk of regressions cost increase for more complex changes).

Source code transformations were integrated in other software areas
according to such a change pattern.


> As for this specific discussion, there are certain "design-patterns"
> in the kernel, goto style error handling is one of them, the pattern
> there ALWAYS is:
…
> Notice the fall-thoughs those are ALWAYS there, never, ever is
> there a goto after a cleanup label.

It seems that I present an unusual update suggestion as a software
design variant.


> Your patches black goto magic completely messes this up

You can view the proposal in such a way.


> and clearly falls under the CS101 rule: never use goto.

There might a target conflict with information from the section
“7) Centralized exiting of functions” in the document “coding-style.rst”.

Regards,
Markus