>>> What the patch tries to do is avoid the extra 'if (err)'. >> >> Yes. - I propose to look at related consequences together with the usage >> of a popular short jump label once more. > > When I read a subject saying "Better exception handling" it sounds like > a functional improvement. Your change does not change anything > functionally and may or may not save a bit of execution time depending > on how smart the compiler is.
Can it eventually matter to skip another condition check in three cases? > What you change does is confuse people reading the code. A few software developers might find this proposal unusual. > So please explain why your update improves exception handling here. > I don't see it. How does this feedback fit to the mentioned check avoidance? > The code is not making the driver more robust against failures That's true for this update suggestion. > in this function, which is what I think of reading "better exception > handling". Other implementation details are affected by the shown fine-tuning. Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
