On 19/07/16 16:56, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void scsiback_device_action(struct vscsibk_pend *pending_req,
>>> tmr = kzalloc(sizeof(struct scsiback_tmr), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!tmr) {
>>> target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);
>>> - goto err;
>>> + goto do_resp;
>>> }
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not convinced this is an improvement.
>>
>> I'd rather rename the new error label to "put_cmd" and get rid of the
>> braces in above if statement:
>>
>> - if (!tmr) {
>> - target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);
>> - goto err;
>> - }
>> + if (!tmr)
>> + goto put_cmd;
>>
>> and then in the error path:
>>
>> -err:
>> +put_cmd:
>> + target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);
>
> I am unsure on the relevance of this function on such a source position.
> Would it make sense to move it further down at the end?
You only want to call it in the first error case (allocation failure).
>> +free_tmr:
>> kfree(tmr);
>
> How do you think about to skip this function call after a memory
> allocation failure?
I think this just doesn't matter. If it were a hot path, yes. But trying
to do micro-optimizations in an error path is just not worth the effort.
I like a linear error path containing all the needed cleanups best.
Juergen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
