>> @@ -1121,30 +1121,27 @@ static int snd_via82xx_create(struct snd_card *card,
>>
>> if ((err = pci_request_regions(pci, card->driver)) < 0) {
>> kfree(chip);
>> - pci_disable_device(pci);
>> - return err;
>> + goto disable_device;
>> }
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> @@ -1153,6 +1150,14 @@ static int snd_via82xx_create(struct snd_card *card,
>>
>> *r_via = chip;
>> return 0;
>> +
>> +disable_device:
>> + pci_disable_device(pci);
>> + goto exit;
>
> Why is this "goto exit" here?
Should the same return statement be reached after the proposed refactoring?
Would you like to move such a function call to this source code place?
> It's leaking now.
How do you come to this conclusion?
>> +free_chip:
>> + snd_via82xx_free(chip);
>> +exit:
>> + return err;
>> }
Is this update suggestion worth for another look?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
