From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 21:48:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta_change() after error detection Message-Id: <54CD4D91.9080801@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD042E.6030606@users.sourceforge.net> <54CD115C.8070801@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <54CD115C.8070801@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Lino Sanfilippo , "David S. Miller" , Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall >> +exit: >> return err; >> } > > Why do you use that exit label if it does nothing more than returning > the error value? Also if nla_parse fails you dont use it but return the > error directly. While using a label which is used only to return an > error may be a matter of taste, its at least inconsistent to do both in > a function, use such a label in one case and return immediately in > another, isnt it? I find that all these cases correspond to the current Linux coding style documentation, doesn't it? Regards, Markus