On Jun 07, 2023 / 09:32, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/7/23 2:32?AM, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > @@ -339,6 +339,33 @@ static void zbd_write_zone_put(struct thread_data *td, const struct fio_file *f,
> > z->write = 0;
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * zbd_reset_zone - reset the write pointer of a single zone and remove the zone
> > + * from the array of write zones.
> > + * @td: FIO thread data.
> > + * @f: FIO file associated with the disk for which to reset a write pointer.
> > + * @z: Zone to reset.
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 upon success and a negative error code upon failure.
> > + * The caller must hold z->mutex.
> > + */
> > +static int zbd_reset_zone(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f,
> > + struct fio_zone_info *z)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = __zbd_reset_zone(td, f, z);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto done;
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&f->zbd_info->mutex);
> > + zbd_write_zone_put(td, f, z);
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&f->zbd_info->mutex);
> > +
> > +done:
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> This would look better as:
>
> {
> int ret;
>
> ret = __zbd_reset_zone(td, f, z);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> pthread_mutex_lock(&f->zbd_info->mutex);
> zbd_write_zone_put(td, f, z);
> pthread_mutex_unlock(&f->zbd_info->mutex);
> return 0;
> }
>
> to avoid that goto. Goto only makes sense if there's common cleanup to
> do for multiple error cases, not for a single failure where you can just
> return the error.
Thanks for the comment. Will reflect in v2.
