>>>> @@ -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", I imagine that run time situations could evolve where software efficiency will also matter for this purpose. > it needs to be easily parsable by humans. I guess that we have got different preferences for this detail. > If in doubt, the compiler will be _much_ better at optimizing > that kind of stuff anyway. Which compiler (or optimizer) implementation is capable to restructure the jump targets for you automatically in the way I propose here? Regards, Markus -- 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
