On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:56:47 +0200 SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> @@ -273,10 +273,12 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.nr_hw_wp = nr_wp; > >> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.hw_wp_info = wp_info; > >> return 0; > >> -error: > >> - kfree(bp_data); > >> - kfree(wp_info); > >> +free_bp_info: > >> kfree(bp_info); > >> +free_wp_info: > >> + kfree(wp_info); > >> +free_bp_data: > >> + kfree(bp_data); > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > > > > This replaces a perfectly fine fallthrough > > The usage of a single goto label like "error" seems to be convenient. > But how do these habits fit to the current Linux coding style convention? > > > > with some horrible labels. > > Do they explain better which processing steps should be performed > for an efficient exception handling in this function implementation? *sigh* It's _exception handling_. It does not need to be "efficient", it needs to be easily parsable by humans. If in doubt, the compiler will be _much_ better at optimizing that kind of stuff anyway. So still NACK. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
