Re: [patch v2] checkpatch: complain about GW-BASIC style label names

[One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:16:13 +0200
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:37:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > GW-BASIC style label names are annoying so we can warn about that in
> > checkpatch.  The warnings look like:
> > 
> > 	WARNING: 'fail2' isn't informative - prefer descriptive label names
> > 	#267: FILE: ./sound/ppc/beep.c:267:
> > 	+ fail2:        snd_ctl_remove(chip->card, beep_ctl);
> > 
> > This generates slightly under 2000 new warnings.  None of them are
> > false positives.
> 
> Please whitelist fs/btrfs/* from this type of checkpatch warning.

If you could whitelist the rest of the kernel too that would also be
useful.

There's nothing wrong with driver code that ends


fail_3:
	xxx
fail_2:
	yyy
fail_1:

	blah
	return;

if anything it makes it very clear which level of unravelling on error is
occurring and at a glance enables you to see that the error handling is
ordered properly.