On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:51:13 +0100
Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:22:02 +0200
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 25-10-17 18:15, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a
> > >> single unlock call
> > >
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:07:48 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > What you are suggesting breaks this pattern
>
> I might be looking for an other balance between involved implementation
> details after your constructive feedback for my first approach
> in this software module.
>
>
> > (not usi
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:22:02 +0200
Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25-10-17 18:15, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a
> >> single unlock call
> >> at the end, not a separate one in in error label.
> >
> > Thanks for your up
> What you are suggesting breaks this pattern
I might be looking for an other balance between involved implementation
details after your constructive feedback for my first approach
in this software module.
> (not using a goto in the last if (err) case)
I would find it nice when a bit more code
Hi,
On 25-10-17 18:58, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
If that is the only unlock in the function, then it is probably
best to keep things as is. In general gotos are considered
better then multiple unlocks, but not having either is
even better.
Thanks for your quick feedback.
How do you think abo
> If that is the only unlock in the function, then it is probably
> best to keep things as is. In general gotos are considered
> better then multiple unlocks, but not having either is
> even better.
Thanks for your quick feedback.
>> How do you think about to use the following code variant then?
Hi,
On 25-10-17 18:15, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a single
unlock call
at the end, not a separate one in in error label.
Thanks for your update suggestion.
Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments
> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a
> single unlock call
> at the end, not a separate one in in error label.
Thanks for your update suggestion.
Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments
in this software area?
> Could e.g. change t
Hi,
On 25-10-17 16:33, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:26:29 +0200
Add a jump target so that a call of the function "mutex_unlock" is mostly
stored at the end of these function implementations.
Replace five calls by goto statements.
This issue was detec
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:26:29 +0200
Add a jump target so that a call of the function "mutex_unlock" is mostly
stored at the end of these function implementations.
Replace five calls by goto statements.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-b
10 matches
Mail list logo
