From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757495AbcIWHge (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:36:34 -0400
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:50813 "EHLO mout.web.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751976AbcIWHgb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 03:36:31 -0400
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TILCDC: Less function calls in
 tilcdc_convert_slave_node() after error detection
To: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <2f3f7ad7-16a0-1dfb-d073-0d993cd767ee@users.sourceforge.net>
 <0be7fee0-64f7-fa02-0337-51376677343e@users.sourceforge.net>
 <e9b443c7-2947-46d5-462f-58c175b774bc@ti.com>
 <d9b20442-3f84-82bd-d600-e3045a21da99@users.sourceforge.net>
 <b22e0060-503d-ac31-fe8c-8a356145bec8@ti.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <d9ce49fe-4aab-2138-3ecc-86fa825120fa@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:36:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b22e0060-503d-ac31-fe8c-8a356145bec8@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:mqpMofcXobCaCMOJr3wqvoWd6boIpq4U9+t3XGuROtC8rYwXSsn
 DJgXisUgJspRTNzLJUVNRNzCfn73CDiVy1VllT5ANDck8rf0CJezutheGLNECoKKvL2vqDk
 cIPZ87bkd3yaM/VRmtSmR974h1ct543D4pdDDGgoLOFauX0U5gmtm95h//OnvMGFWytZNEk
 C8tHOSMFGHu3jo754U32Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:tZeMFbX4TuI=:sfX0lEbOVHuon2tRsswmtN
 Ol7Nn8f1zdsGllq+QwdXZcnSIxIvEwGjCZ+5N8XsrbmVjVclkh1L3x7i4NdZ9SmtwdlgoLKST
 mCO09lWsWFj1Ks7KVpogfU5SYk3og2KaqrbGSbxKXiT9Lzo+jFW8tv+9LxzdDXiKvsprqMh3G
 6rB4cZ7IWMqME6PtrStN6ft5sa/JlUGWhimVtOhfBZk4ToP3UNq+e4WrAVAT07B6FeT2GHkMk
 aSpNRlEkmDvU7APeF9h6I/is8Wlj1iUeErgo/gaF2SLcXqT9jEx+WlUVwOXCBEBAoS+3bANgN
 rNtzZo7pY9Lbl/ii9Z3d+MgLwYk4PfoUG6YnaGS933S08T1AjJM14pCc0fHzYKi/46LREezHm
 W6/WhNRKav3C1gmPIecxSO6nM/+X/S96O1DRvIwafkvj9w5Sv042NsNuxjlkAik1iH1VQMHcR
 TXwkADphA2HZ0caGmAwtBkU1bN+rosbW9OmFnQ8yAjiinSd6g1Vt4TxJEsJZPRxxLtqnk0+mn
 2G1PyB04LIXY4JTUCRTyBgdKFP2NVYIkOqJqbKnWupIP3CPlqp5desSkjhOlHel4qHBZB8Ud3
 jcGe6AN165O1TKb7Opw7OpjgwNvWR/13WBuyrvObtZYmW1hK0cFZI+AEyACtZY8j1IrJBFA4L
 TbmkceTC4bzl0Iu3DmHCb7DWYZIPC4uB3/zoIc75RyHkeM/S5W9/ZUJjxVap/YTaj7TnJCp1f
 sYeYiZFqz3hDe9EQXPxs0FG8MUiMFjy84TlwX+Gczn73tdK4YXZ693f4nyczavdwPD8oP50qs
 XI6HaDl
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> I think the "if (node)" in the of_node_put() is there on purpose,

Yes, of course.

Does such an implementation detail correspond to a general software design pattern?


> because it potentially saves the caller one extra if()-statement

This can occasionally happen.


> and keeps the caller code simpler.

A special view on software simplicity can also lead to questionable intermediate
function implementation, can't it?


> Keeping the goto labels in right order needs precision

I can agree to this view.


> and can lead to subtle errors.

The management of jump labels is just another software development challenge
as usual, isn't it?


> Sometimes there is no way to avoid that,

How do you think about to clarify the constraints which you imagine a bit more?


> but here there is.

I disagree to this conclusion.

Would you like to care a bit more for efficiency and software correctness
around the discussed exception handling?

Regards,
Markus