Re: [PATCH v1 00/59] trivial unneeded labels cleanup

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 1/6/20 4:54 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 03:23:26PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > Hello,
[...]
> > Which is cleaner and requires less brain cycles to wonder
> > whether the 'cleanup' label does anything special, such
> > as a heap memory cleanup.
>
> I would disagree with this analysis.  To me, I often wonder
> when I have to add cleanup code to a routine whether there is
> some hidden return in the middle of the function.  That's a lot
> harder to spot than just looking for the cleanup label at the
> end of the function to see what it does.  For non-trivial
> functions I prefer to have one point of return at the end
> (and maybe some minor checks with returns right at the beginning).
> I'm not adamant about this, just my opinion.

I agree that what I'm doing here isn't a one rule fits all situation. This
is why I didn't purge all the 'unused' labels I found. The criteria used to
remove/spare labels will differ from person to person (although I believe that
cases such as patch 15 isn't too much of a debate), thus I'd rather leave to
each maintainer to accept/deny the changes based on the context of the code.

And for this same reason I don't think that a checkpatch rule is necessary.
The review process can take care of these situations and allow 'good unneeded
labels' to be in the code.


Thanks,


DHB



> But if we are going to fix things like this, it might be best to add
> them to the coding style document and checkpatch script.  Otherwise
> these sorts of things will just continue.
>
> -corey