> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 9:57 AM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: tony0620emma@xxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; Bernie Huang <phhuang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] wifi: rtw88: add missing destroy_workqueue() on error path in rtw_core_init()
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022/8/26 8:44, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 9:38 PM
> >> To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: tony0620emma@xxxxxxxxx; kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; Bernie Huang <phhuang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [PATCH -next] wifi: rtw88: add missing destroy_workqueue() on error path in rtw_core_init()
> >>
> >> Add the missing destroy_workqueue() before return from rtw_core_init()
> >> in error path.
> >>
> >> Fixes: fe101716c7c9 ("rtw88: replace tx tasklet with work queue")
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c | 8 ++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> >> index 790dcfed1125..557213e52761 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> >> @@ -2094,7 +2094,7 @@ int rtw_core_init(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> >> ret = rtw_load_firmware(rtwdev, RTW_NORMAL_FW);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> rtw_warn(rtwdev, "no firmware loaded\n");
> >> - return ret;
> >> + goto destroy_workqueue;
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (chip->wow_fw_name) {
> >> @@ -2104,11 +2104,15 @@ int rtw_core_init(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> >> wait_for_completion(&rtwdev->fw.completion);
> >> if (rtwdev->fw.firmware)
> >> release_firmware(rtwdev->fw.firmware);
> >> - return ret;
> >> + goto destroy_workqueue;
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> +
> >> +destroy_workqueue:
> > It's not so good that the label 'destroy_workqueue' is the same as function name.
> > I suggest to just use 'out' instead.
> How about 'out_destory_workqueue' ?
>
Since there is only single one error case we need to handle, using 'out'
isn't ambiguous.
