Am 02.06.2017 18:07, schrieb Julia Lawall: > > > On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, walter harms wrote: > >> >> >> Am 02.06.2017 14:39, schrieb Milan P. Gandhi: >>> Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine >>> in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for >>> extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c >>> index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c >>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c >>> @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) >>> fcoe_dev_setup(); >>> >>> rc = fcoe_if_init(); >>> + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); >>> + >>> if (rc) >>> - goto out_free; >>> + goto out_destroy; >>> >>> - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); >>> return 0; >>> >> if you do that, why not >> if (!rc) return 0; > > I agree with Dan. If's should be for failures. > yep, but it "feels" also wrong to skip of a simple return. I do not see a good solution. re, wh > julia > >> >> re, >> wh >> >> >> >>> -out_free: >>> - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); >>> out_destroy: >>> destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); >>> return rc; >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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
