From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lino Sanfilippo Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:48:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] net-PPP: Deletion of a few unnecessary checks Message-Id: <54959A3A.4030104@gmx.de> List-Id: References: <548B1E44.6050005@users.sourceforge.net> <20141212.115922.687789059853236747.davem@davemloft.net> <54930D7C.3000901@users.sourceforge.net> <20141218.122556.2148647081075440879.davem@davemloft.net> <54958B8C.7010105@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <54958B8C.7010105@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: David Miller , Sergei Shtylyov , Paul Mackerras , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Hi Markus, On 20.12.2014 15:45, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I'm saying to leave the code alone. > > Do I need to try another interpretation out for your feedback? > > >> If it goes: >> >> var = foo_that_returns_ptr_err() >> if (IS_ERR(var)) >> return PTR_ERR(var); >> >> p->bar = var; >> >> or whatever, simply keep it that way! > > Do you want to express here that a data structure member should > only be set after a previous function call succeeded? > I think what David said was pretty clear: If you see code like the above there is no need to refactor it. That does not mean that this is the _preferred_ way of error handling. Its just good enough to be left alone. Regards, Lino