Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1298602
| From | SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength() after error detection |
| Date | 2015-12-28 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qKDnz-AY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qEuGl-43C-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qKC89-8ir-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qKChP-8lQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
>> Move the jump label directly before the desired log statement >> so that the variable "ret" will not be checked once more >> after it was determined that a function call failed. > > Why not avoid both unnecessary ifs I would find such a fine-tuning also nice in principle at more source code places. > and the enormous ugliness of a label inside an if by making two returns: > a return 0 for success and a dev_dbg and return ret for failure? How should your suggestion finally work when the desired execution success can be determined for such functions only after several other calls succeeded? Is consistent checking of failure predicates usually required? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength() after error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 10:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength() after error detection Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2015-12-28 10:30 +0100
Re: [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength() after error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 11:40 +0100
Re: [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength() after error detection Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2015-12-28 11:40 +0100
[PATCH 0/2] [media] m88rs6000t: Fine-tuning for some function implementations SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 15:40 +0100
[PATCH 1/2] [media] m88rs6000t: Better exception handling in five functions SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] [media] m88rs6000t: Better exception handling in five functions Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2015-12-28 15:50 +0100
Re: [media] m88rs6000t: Better exception handling in five functions SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 16:10 +0100
Re: [media] m88rs6000t: Better exception handling in five functions Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2015-12-28 16:20 +0100
[PATCH 2/2] [media] tuners: Refactoring for m88rs6000t_sleep() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2015-12-28 15:50 +0100
csiph-web