Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> He just keeps sending these crap patches without listening to anybody, I am listening. - But this does not automatically mean that we come to the same thoughts and conclusions on some topics. > thereby wasting valuable developer time. There are also contributors who respond in a positive way

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> He just keeps sending these crap patches without listening to anybody, I am listening. - But this does not automatically mean that we come to the same thoughts and conclusions on some topics. > thereby wasting valuable developer time. There are also contributors who respond in a positive way

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On 2017.10.23 at 11:48 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > just makes the code less readable. I know you never listen to anyone, > but you should stop doing it. How long have we to put up with this? He just keeps sending these crap

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On 2017.10.23 at 11:48 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > just makes the code less readable. I know you never listen to anyone, > but you should stop doing it. How long have we to put up with this? He just keeps sending these crap

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

>> Could you become used to the proposed control flow structure >> in the affected function? >> > > No. Don't do this. Thanks for your information. > It's pointless obfuscation. I disagree for this view. >> There are some challenges around change acceptance as usual. > > Yeah. I knew it

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

>> Could you become used to the proposed control flow structure >> in the affected function? >> > > No. Don't do this. Thanks for your information. > It's pointless obfuscation. I disagree for this view. >> There are some challenges around change acceptance as usual. > > Yeah. I knew it

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:01:05AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > > just makes the code less readable. > > I got an other software development opinion on this aspect. > Could you become used to the proposed control flow

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:01:05AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > > just makes the code less readable. > > I got an other software development opinion on this aspect. > Could you become used to the proposed control flow

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > just makes the code less readable. I got an other software development opinion on this aspect. Could you become used to the proposed control flow structure in the affected function? > I know you never listen to anyone, My

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function > just makes the code less readable. I got an other software development opinion on this aspect. Could you become used to the proposed control flow structure in the affected function? > I know you never listen to anyone, My

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function just makes the code less readable. I know you never listen to anyone, but you should stop doing it. regards, dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

This business of moving the error code to the bottom of the function just makes the code less readable. I know you never listen to anyone, but you should stop doing it. regards, dan carpenter

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> If you are going to use multiple labels, > it'd be nicer to rename out: too. Thanks for your suggestion. I left this place untouched because such kind of renaming seemed to be unwanted in some software areas for a while. How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small

Re: um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

> If you are going to use multiple labels, > it'd be nicer to rename out: too. Thanks for your suggestion. I left this place untouched because such kind of renaming seemed to be unwanted in some software areas for a while. How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 19:29 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > arch/um/drivers/port_user.c If you are going to use multiple labels, it'd be nicer to rename out: too.

Re: [PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 19:29 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > arch/um/drivers/port_user.c If you are going to use multiple labels, it'd be nicer to rename out: too.

[PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:24:39 +0200 Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused at the end of this function. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring

[PATCH] um: Use common error handling code in port_listen_fd()

From: Markus Elfring Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 19:24:39 +0200 Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused at the end of this function. This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring --- arch/um/drivers/port_user.c | 21