On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 01:45:26PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote: > > @@ -2198,7 +2200,8 @@ static int c4iw_reconnect(struct c4iw_ep *ep) > > fail4: > > dst_release(ep->dst); > > fail3: > > - remove_handle(ep->com.dev, &ep->com.dev->atid_idr, ep->atid); > > + xa_erase_irq(&ep->com.dev->atids, ep->atid); > > +fail5: > > cxgb4_free_atid(ep->com.dev->rdev.lldi.tids, ep->atid); > > fail2: > > Don't like the out-of-order label. Care to rename all of them to make them > more descriptive and avoid this 4, 3, 5, 2 sequence? I think the general kernel advice is to not number labels in the first place, for exactly this maintenance reason. Probably the best is a fail3_xa or something? Jason
