| Message ID | 20150507111652.GA10574@IND12F0122 (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
"Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> > --- > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) NACK! The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in the middle of the code. Jes > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c > index b139ed4..a979048 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c > @@ -1209,7 +1209,6 @@ static int cfg80211_rtw_change_iface(struct wiphy *wiphy, > struct rtw_adapter *padapter = wiphy_to_adapter(wiphy); > struct mlme_ext_priv *pmlmeext = &padapter->mlmeextpriv; > struct wireless_dev *rtw_wdev = wiphy_to_wdev(wiphy); > - int ret = 0; > > DBG_8723A("%s(%s): call netdev_open23a\n", __func__, ndev->name); > > @@ -1238,14 +1237,12 @@ static int cfg80211_rtw_change_iface(struct wiphy *wiphy, > > if (cfg80211_infrastructure_mode(padapter, type) != _SUCCESS) { > rtw_wdev->iftype = old_type; > - ret = -EPERM; > - goto exit; > + return -EPERM; > } > > rtw_setopmode_cmd23a(padapter, type); > > -exit: > - return ret; > + return 0; > } > > void rtw_cfg80211_indicate_scan_done(struct rtw_wdev_priv *pwdev_priv, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable > > > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > NACK! SHOUTING! > > The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in > the middle of the code. More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:19:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > > > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > NACK! > > SHOUTING! > > > > > The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in > > the middle of the code. > > More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the > function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. > > regards, > dan carpenter > I sent this patch because goto & return was mixed up in this function. There was a return as well as goto used. And i guess goto is not encouraged anywhere. In this case especially,I couldn't see any significant cleanup being done in the goto label.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: >> > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> >> > --- >> > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> NACK! > > SHOUTING! It's normal to write NACK in upper case > >> >> The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in >> the middle of the code. > > More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the > function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. That is *your* preference! Having returns scattered randomly throughout the code is annoying and hard to catch when reading the code! This case is *not* a bug, so it comes down to personal preference of the maintainer. For code you maintain, feel free to do as you like, I will *not* never bother you for this kind of preference issues, I will tell you if I spot an actual bug. This is one of the problems with checkpatch style tools, they have become harassment tools, for some people to impose their personal preferences onto others. It would be so much more valuable if they just focused on real bugs! Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
"Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:19:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: >> > > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> >> > > --- >> > > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- >> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > >> > NACK! >> >> SHOUTING! >> >> > >> > The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in >> > the middle of the code. >> >> More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the >> function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. >> >> regards, >> dan carpenter >> > > I sent this patch because goto & return was mixed up in this function. > There was a return as well as goto used. And i guess goto is not > encouraged anywhere. In this case especially,I couldn't see any > significant cleanup being done in the goto label. I will accept a patch to remove the returns in the middle of the function, if you wish to submit that. A return at the very beginning of a function is OK, but in the middle of a larger function they make it harder to catch when code exists. Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes: > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> NACK! > > SHOUTING! > It's normal to write NACK in upper case Not with an exclamation point. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes: > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes: >> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >> NACK! >> > SHOUTING! >> It's normal to write NACK in upper case > > Not with an exclamation point. I would add a <blink> tag if ascii email allowed that! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:09:59AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:19:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > >> > > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> > >> > > --- > >> > > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- > >> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > NACK! > >> > >> SHOUTING! > >> > >> > > >> > The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in > >> > the middle of the code. > >> > >> More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the > >> function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. > >> > >> regards, > >> dan carpenter > >> > > > > I sent this patch because goto & return was mixed up in this function. > > There was a return as well as goto used. And i guess goto is not > > encouraged anywhere. In this case especially,I couldn't see any > > significant cleanup being done in the goto label. > > I will accept a patch to remove the returns in the middle of the > function, if you wish to submit that. > > A return at the very beginning of a function is OK, but in the middle of > a larger function they make it harder to catch when code exists. > > Jes Is this accepted as it is or should I send v2 with the goto retained but the return in the middle of the function also converted to goto for consistency.I agree that goto's are used at many places in the kernel but this is really a small function where it doesn't seem to help much.Also there is no signficant cleanup being done in the definition of the label. regards Hari-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
"Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:09:59AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: >> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:19:34PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 08:03:06AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >> > "Gujulan Elango, Hari Prasath (H.)" <hgujulan@visteon.com> writes: >> >> > > Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable >> >> > > >> >> > > Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> >> >> > > --- >> >> > > drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- >> >> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > NACK! >> >> >> >> SHOUTING! >> >> >> >> > >> >> > The goto is cleaner and more consistent, rather than hiding a return in >> >> > the middle of the code. >> >> >> >> More consistent with what? There are already returns earlier in the >> >> function. Do-nothing gotos are pointless and annoying. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> dan carpenter >> >> >> > >> > I sent this patch because goto & return was mixed up in this function. >> > There was a return as well as goto used. And i guess goto is not >> > encouraged anywhere. In this case especially,I couldn't see any >> > significant cleanup being done in the goto label. >> >> I will accept a patch to remove the returns in the middle of the >> function, if you wish to submit that. >> >> A return at the very beginning of a function is OK, but in the middle of >> a larger function they make it harder to catch when code exists. >> >> Jes > > Is this accepted as it is or should I send v2 with the goto retained but > the return in the middle of the function also converted to goto for > consistency.I agree that goto's are used at many places in the kernel > but this is really a small function where it doesn't seem to help > much.Also there is no signficant cleanup being done in the definition of > the label. As I stated previously, this is not accepted. Jes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c index b139ed4..a979048 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c @@ -1209,7 +1209,6 @@ static int cfg80211_rtw_change_iface(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct rtw_adapter *padapter = wiphy_to_adapter(wiphy); struct mlme_ext_priv *pmlmeext = &padapter->mlmeextpriv; struct wireless_dev *rtw_wdev = wiphy_to_wdev(wiphy); - int ret = 0; DBG_8723A("%s(%s): call netdev_open23a\n", __func__, ndev->name); @@ -1238,14 +1237,12 @@ static int cfg80211_rtw_change_iface(struct wiphy *wiphy, if (cfg80211_infrastructure_mode(padapter, type) != _SUCCESS) { rtw_wdev->iftype = old_type; - ret = -EPERM; - goto exit; + return -EPERM; } rtw_setopmode_cmd23a(padapter, type); -exit: - return ret; + return 0; } void rtw_cfg80211_indicate_scan_done(struct rtw_wdev_priv *pwdev_priv,
Remove the goto and return error directly thereby removing a variable Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath Gujulan Elango <hgujulan@visteon.com> --- drivers/staging/rtl8723au/os_dep/ioctl_cfg80211.c | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)