On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > It is fine to use goto as it is described in the document you linked but > > this what you are doing is certainly not fine, at least in the code I'm > > maintaining: > > > > out_unlock: > > mutex_unlock(&xd->lock); > > mutex_unlock(&xdomain_lock); > > return; > > > > out_free_dir: > > tb_property_free_dir(dir); > > goto out_unlock; > > > > This "goto out_unlock" adds another goto to upwards which makes it > > really hard to follow because the flow is not anymore just downwards. > > Would you like to benefit any more from the application of > scope-based resource management? Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
