> @@ -555,13 +555,16 @@ static int iucv_enable(void) >> if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) >> /* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */ >> goto out; >> + >> + rc = 0; >> +unlock: >> cpus_read_unlock(); >> - return 0; >> + return rc; >> + >> out: >> kfree(iucv_path_table); >> iucv_path_table = NULL; >> - cpus_read_unlock(); >> - return rc; >> + goto unlock; > [Suman] This looks confusing. What is the issue with retaining the original change? I propose to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (in the source code). Regards, Markus
