From: Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@7eggert.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: bus_add_device() losing an error return from the probe() method
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       gregkh@suse.de, tiwai@suse.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:41:37 +0200
References: <5TNbU-7Xn-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <5UsI5-Wf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <5UM40-3Dy-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Message-Id: <E1FNrz7-0001Cj-Nj@be1.lrz>
X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information
X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: harvested.in.lkml@posting.7eggert.dyndns.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 948
Lines: 17

Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:

>> Looks sane, but please don't sprinkle `return' statements all over a
>> function in this manner.
> 
> I actually prefer the multiple returns. You then don't have to "visually
> scroll down" to the label to see what would happen when reading the
> code. Even when there's common code before the return, I've never seen
> GCC not optimise that to the goto form itself. You obviously the boss
> though.

I tried both, and I found out that having multiple non-trivial points of
return enables you to easily create a lot of bugs.
-- 
Ich danke GMX daf?r, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten L?gen zu sabotieren.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/