[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1452199320.4028.46.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:42:00 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts()
after error detection
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 21:38 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless
> > of the number of exit points that any particular use of a
> > specific function type.
[]
> > Some of your patches are converting these templatized
> > functions to a different form for no added value.
>
> Would you like to distinguish a bit more between my evolving
> collection of update suggestions and the concrete proposal
> for the function "nicvf_register_interrupts"?
No.
> > These patches make the local source code inconsistent
> > and generally goes against the authors preferred style.
>
> Which programming approach will be the leading one here finally?
Whatever the developer wants.
There is no _best_ or _only_ style for this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists