On 3/10/2018 10:33 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:18:45 +0100
Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused
at the end of this function.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
You call this an issue?
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c
index 1cc5bba670e1..7d37a417c756 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c
[...]
ret = wl1271_cmd_configure(wl, ACX_RATE_POLICY, acx, sizeof(*acx));
- if (ret < 0) {
- wl1271_warning("Setting of rate policies failed: %d", ret);
- goto out;
- }
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto report_failure;
-out:
+free_acx:
kfree(acx);
return ret;
+
+report_failure:
+ wl1271_warning("Setting of rate policies failed: %d", ret);
+ goto free_acx;
In my opinion you are introducing a new issue. I don't call this
"common" in any way. It is leaning more towards "spaghetti code" [1].
Jumping over a label to return to it with another jump. They are not
long jumps, but it sure does not make thing more readable. Always aim
for simple top-to-bottom.
Regards,
Arend
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code
}
int wl1271_acx_ap_rate_policy(struct wl1271 *wl, struct conf_tx_rate_class *c,
