Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / PM: Split acpi_device_wakeup()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, July 21, 2017 06:27:39 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here
>
> Well, I prefer shorter ones.
>
>> To be constructive:
>> out -> err_unlock
>> out -> out_unlock or err_unlock (depends on context)
>>
>>
>> > +out:
>> > +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);
>> > +       return error;
>>
>> > +out:
>> > +       mutex_unlock(&acpi_wakeup_lock);
>>
>>
>
> So while I don't have a particular problem with appending the "_unlock" to the
> "out", I'm not exactly sure why this would be an improvement.
>
> If that's just a matter of personal preference, then I would prefer to follow
> my personal preference here, with all due respect.  [And besides, it follows
> the general style of this file which matters too IMO.]
>
> But if there's more to it, just please let me know. :-)

"Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.  An
example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees
``buffer``.
Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to
renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness
difficult to verify anyway."

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko