netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove unnecessary return's

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]

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