[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140213.181416.1185115361356253646.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: julia.lawall@...6.fr
Cc: davej@...hat.com, joe@...ches.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove unnecessary return's
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:28:27 +0100 (CET)
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:55:23PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>
>> > The patch below converts label: return; } to label: ; }. I have only
>> > scanned through the patches, not patched the code and looked at the
>> > results, so I am not sure that it is completely correct. On the other
>> > hand, I'm also not sure that label: ; } is better than label: return; },
>> > either. If people think it is, then I can cheack the results in more
>> > detail.
>>
>> Why not delete the label, and just replace the goto with a return if
>> the label is at the end of the function ?
>
> Here is an example. Perhaps the uniformity of the if ... goto pattern is
> valuable, though?
I think it is valuable, it's so much easier to audit the return paths
via a process of elimination with that kind of layout. A return in
the middle of that looks out of place at best.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists