On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 23:12 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 21.03.2015 um 23:06 schrieb L. Alberto Giménez: > > There are a lot of cases where a too generic goto label for cleanup > > causes a bug or makes debugging harder. [] > > If something is already in the kernel code, does that mean that it's OK? > > I honestly don't think so, and I think that goto labels for cleanup exit > > paths should be a little more descriptive. > > I disagree. out and exit are perfectly fine labels.
I agree with you Richard. While the form of the patch is fine, but content is not. There might be a case for a coccinelle style patch that looks for more than a single label in a function and looks at the label name choices, but I think it'd be pretty dubious at best. > > It's just a proposal for a warning. If it is really not needed, it won't > > be applied and life will go on :) In that case, it'd be nicer to preface the patch subject with RFC > checkpatch.pl is already more than annoying. It used to be a nice tool but > it becomes more and more an harassment for guys who actually work on the > kernel. Richard, what sub-optimal messages do you think checkpatch produces by default? cheers, Joe -- 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/