From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754213AbbAaVsN (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:48:13 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:55317 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752301AbbAaVsL (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:48:11 -0500 Message-ID: <54CD4D91.9080801@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 22:48:01 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lino Sanfilippo , "David S. Miller" , Jamal Hadi Salim , netdev@vger.kernel.org CC: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sched: One function call less in em_meta_change() after error detection 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Sa61m7VeOBAGetUll8C0nU46P5W1DOhwqmzDMu/iuCoJe9WW73J 9kidTC7+0mATvrJnjn3JrgdcpLtGAflPJqJI16AcMVD0Ky/DVETbbuHughbHaWoXMwfrWmk 5RnlO2kDL1DpN51+vRF7yt+s1P/WYzj9LkbsbckhV76BEiA2P3C30xFDbJ/Bi6vI3RoomUF Umhz77IjsbVRHLQObDISQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> +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