[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a065558a24de42395d1175798f05272b07311c2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:13:34 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Leonid Kushnir <leonf008@...il.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
mchehab@...nel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] media: staging: atomisp: Removed else branch in
function
On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 21:04 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Code should generally do "error handling" instead of "success handling".
Maybe something to add to coding-style
(in '6} Functions' maybe?)...
> That way the success path is always indented one tab and the error path
> is indented two tabs. I like to say that the call and the error handling
> are part of the same thing, but with success handling, it's like
> do the call, do more stuff, go back to the error handling from the
> earlier call.
[]
> Anyway, TLDR, please write it like this:
>
> if (on == 0)
> return power_down(sd);
>
> ret = power_up(sd);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> return gc0310_init(sd);
Much nicer, thanks for taking the time to write it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists