Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Remove hard dependency on DMI

On 03/03/2010 07:20 PM, Ed Swierk wrote: >On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Dave Allan<dallan(a)redhat.com> wrote: >>Although I use goto a lot, I generally try to avoid multiple labels >>within a >>function, just because I think it gets out of hand really quickly. >>Although >>it's a slightly more invasive patch, would you refactor the code to look >>something like what I've attached? I haven't even compile tested it as >>I'm >>running late, but that's the idea. > >Is there a piece of code in libvirt that exemplifies the preferred >error handling style? (http://libvirt.org/hacking.html doesn't cover >this issue, as far as I can tell.) Just in the very small part of >libvirt I've hacked on recently I've found a variety of styles, >including Agreed that we should add a statement to the hacking guide. My preferences are as follows. >- pair every allocation with a goto label that frees the allocation >and all the earlier ones, and goto the appropriate label on error I like Robert Love's description of this style at the very end of the thread at: http://kerneltrap.org/node/553/2131 I like this style, but my impression is that generally the libvirt community prefers to have a single label that frees everything, perhaps conditionally on error, unless it's absolutely necessary to have multiple labels.