From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:50966 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbcABIKE (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2016 03:10:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-libertas: Better exception handling in if_spi_host_to_card_worker() To: Sergei Shtylyov , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5686F0B2.5000000@users.sourceforge.net> <56870866.7020000@cogentembedded.com> Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <568785B3.5000905@users.sourceforge.net> (sfid-20160102_091111_611895_2E9AD7CA) Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:09:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56870866.7020000@cogentembedded.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> Move the jump label directly before the desired log statement >> so that the variable "err" will not be checked once more >> after it was determined that a function call failed. >> Use the identifier "report_failure" instead of the label "err". > > Why? I suggest to reconsider the places with which such a jump label is connected. > The code was smart enough Which action should really be performed after a failure was detected and handled a bit already? * Another condition check * Just additional error logging > and you're making it uglier that it needs to be. I assume that a software development taste can evolve, can't it? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:09:23 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-libertas: Better exception handling in if_spi_host_to_card_worker() Message-Id: <568785B3.5000905@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5686F0B2.5000000@users.sourceforge.net> <56870866.7020000@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <56870866.7020000@cogentembedded.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sergei Shtylyov , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall >> Move the jump label directly before the desired log statement >> so that the variable "err" will not be checked once more >> after it was determined that a function call failed. >> Use the identifier "report_failure" instead of the label "err". > > Why? I suggest to reconsider the places with which such a jump label is connected. > The code was smart enough Which action should really be performed after a failure was detected and handled a bit already? * Another condition check * Just additional error logging > and you're making it uglier that it needs to be. I assume that a software development taste can evolve, can't it? Regards, Markus