Your patch remove redundant code, which is fine. Thanks for your constructive feedback. > code you changed was simple enough to be understand quickly. I think replacing > it with a crossed goto (even if it remove redundant code) might not be the best > option. > > A solution might be to move the second loop to the top of the function I am unsure about the relevance of the loop ordering for the affected resource allocations. > so you should be able to replace the end of the cleanup calls with: > > enomem: > ret = -ENOMEM; > free_rx: > vnt_free_rx_bufs(priv); > return ret; The exception handling can eventually adjusted another bit according to your refactoring. > This way, only a failed call to vnt_submit_rx_urb() should jump to free_rx, It seems that a goto statement will still be needed in an error code part by both discussed variants. > another failed call should jump to enomem or previously defined > label, so we can correctly forward errors. This view sounds promising. > With such solution it might be worth adding a comment to describe > that all error should be ENOMEM except for vnt_submit_rx_urb(). Can this function implementation become clearer also without such a comment? Regards, Markus
