>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> So you are asking people to review 60 changed lines to save 2,

A bit of object code reduction might become useful also in this case.

> that alone should be the point where you stop yourself from
> *even* sending this patch.

I proposed just another collateral evolution.

> Next time before you send a patch please carefully think if the
> saving is worth the combination of reviewers time + the risk of
> regressions (and keep in mind that both the reviewers time and
> the risk of regressions cost increase for more complex changes).

Source code transformations were integrated in other software areas
according to such a change pattern.

> As for this specific discussion, there are certain "design-patterns"
> in the kernel, goto style error handling is one of them, the pattern
> there ALWAYS is:
> Notice the fall-thoughs those are ALWAYS there, never, ever is
> there a goto after a cleanup label.

It seems that I present an unusual update suggestion as a software
design variant.

> Your patches black goto magic completely messes this up

You can view the proposal in such a way.

> and clearly falls under the CS101 rule: never use goto.

There might a target conflict with information from the section
“7) Centralized exiting of functions” in the document “coding-style.rst”.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hwmon" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to