Re: [PATCH v1 00/59] trivial unneeded labels cleanup

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 06.01.2020 um 21:35 hat Daniel Henrique Barboza geschrieben:
> 
> 
> On 1/6/20 4:54 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 03:23:26PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > Hello,
> [...]
> > > 
> > > Which is cleaner and requires less brain cycles to wonder
> > > whether the 'cleanup' label does anything special, such
> > > as a heap memory cleanup.
> > 
> > I would disagree with this analysis.  To me, I often wonder
> > when I have to add cleanup code to a routine whether there is
> > some hidden return in the middle of the function.  That's a lot
> > harder to spot than just looking for the cleanup label at the
> > end of the function to see what it does.  For non-trivial
> > functions I prefer to have one point of return at the end
> > (and maybe some minor checks with returns right at the beginning).
> > I'm not adamant about this, just my opinion.

It depends on the case, but yes, I had similar thoughts, at least when
we're talking about non-trivial parts of a function. (Very short
functions of just some initial checks returning directly are usually
fine.)

> I agree that what I'm doing here isn't a one rule fits all situation. This
> is why I didn't purge all the 'unused' labels I found. The criteria used to
> remove/spare labels will differ from person to person (although I believe that
> cases such as patch 15 isn't too much of a debate), thus I'd rather leave to
> each maintainer to accept/deny the changes based on the context of the code.

So what is your plan for getting the series merged? Should maintainers
just picks patches from the series, or do you want to collect Acked-by
tags and then merge it through a single tree? If the latter, which one?

Kevin