On 02.01.24 09:27, Suman Ghosh wrote: >>> [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 > [Suman] Then I think we should do something like this. Changing the code flow back-and-forth using "goto" does not seem correct. I share Suman's concern that jumping backwards goto is confusing. But I think the Coccinelle finding of freeing a null-pointer should be addressed (see patch 2/2) Thank you Markus for reporting it. The allocation does require holding the cpus_read_lock. For some reason Markus wants to reduce the number of cpus_read_unlock() calls (why?), so what about something like this for both issues: diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c index 0ed6e34d6edd..1030403b826b 100644 --- a/net/iucv/iucv.c +++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c @@ -542,24 +542,22 @@ static int iucv_enable(void) size_t alloc_size; int cpu, rc; - cpus_read_lock(); - rc = -ENOMEM; alloc_size = iucv_max_pathid * sizeof(struct iucv_path); iucv_path_table = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_KERNEL); if (!iucv_path_table) - goto out; + return -ENOMEM; /* Declare per cpu buffers. */ - rc = -EIO; + cpus_read_lock(); for_each_online_cpu(cpu) smp_call_function_single(cpu, iucv_declare_cpu, NULL, 1); - if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) + if (cpumask_empty(&iucv_buffer_cpumask)) { /* No cpu could declare an iucv buffer. */ - goto out; - cpus_read_unlock(); - return 0; -out: - kfree(iucv_path_table); - iucv_path_table = NULL; + kfree(iucv_path_table); + iucv_path_table = NULL; + rc = -EIO; + } else { + rc = 0; + } cpus_read_unlock(); return rc; }