Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:50:19 +0000 | From | Tzung-Bi Shih <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH 05/11] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: separate cros_ec_wait_until_complete() |
| |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 07:29:45AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 8:33 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:15:47AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 7:49 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > + ret = cros_ec_xfer_command(ec_dev, msg); > > > > + if (ret == -EAGAIN) > > > > + continue; > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > + break; > > > > > > With the command allocated on the stack, this can return immediately. > > > > Nack, the function has no goto labels. `return ret` follows the loop > > immediately. The `break` here doesn't make it to become too complicated. > > I would prefer to keep it. > > Sorry, you lost me here. The code after the loop does > > kfree(msg); > return ret; > > If kfree() is no longer necessary, only the return statement is left. So break; > is identical to return ret;. Am I missing something ?
You are correct.
I meant personally I would prefer to use `break`: * The loop is short so that it won't become too complicated. * Keep the function has a single exit point.
But, anyway, let's use `return ret` to make it explicit.
|  |