[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bf2e73f2-08b3-5221-2702-524ba6a07497@web.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:10:10 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>,
linkinjeon@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/13] exfat: add exfat entry operations
…
> +++ b/fs/exfat/fatent.c
…
> +int exfat_free_cluster(struct inode *inode, struct exfat_chain *p_chain)
> +{
…
> +out:
> + sbi->used_clusters -= num_clusters;
Can a label like “decrement_counter” be more helpful?
…
> +int exfat_mirror_bh(struct super_block *sb, sector_t sec,
> + struct buffer_head *bh)
> +{
…
> + if (!c_bh) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
Can it be nicer to return directly?
…
> +out:
> + return err;
> +}
Would you like to omit such a label for this function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists