It's weird that you would defend GW-BASIC label names because you
wouldn't defend code which does:
int var1, var2, var4;
Naming labels is useful.
goto error9;
goto err_cleanup_sysfs1;
The second one is more clear. But it's better to look at it in context:
drivers/hid/h
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> checkpatch. The warnings look like:
>
> WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names
> #267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267:
>
On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:16:13 +0200
David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> > checkpatch. The warnings look like:
> >
> > WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descri
You misunderstand. Although I am famous for hating out: labels, I would
not introduce a checkpatch warning to complain about it. This only
complains about GW-BASIC labels.
out3:
kfree(foo);
out2:
kfree(bar);
out:
kfree(baz);
GW-BASIC label suck because they are meaningle
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> checkpatch. The warnings look like:
>
> WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names
> #267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267:
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
