On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 02.06.2017 14:39, schrieb Milan P. Gandhi: > > Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine > > in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for > > extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) > > fcoe_dev_setup(); > > > > rc = fcoe_if_init(); > > + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > + > > if (rc) > > - goto out_free; > > + goto out_destroy; > > > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > return 0; > > > if you do that, why not > if (!rc) return 0; I agree with Dan. If's should be for failures. julia > > re, > wh > > > > > -out_free: > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > out_destroy: > > destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); > > return rc; > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
