On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 09:39 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: > After locks rework [1], ieee80211_start_radar_detection() function is no > longer acquiring any lock as such explicitly. Hence, it is not unlocking > anything as well. However, label "out_unlock" is still used which creates > confusion. > > Rename the label to "return_err". Probably better to get rid of it entirely? > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230828135928.b1c6efffe9ad.I4aec875e25abc9ef0b5ad1e70b5747fd483fbd3c@changeid/ I _think_ people were suggesting to drop the ":" from that? > @@ -3477,7 +3477,7 @@ static int ieee80211_start_radar_detection(struct wiphy *wiphy, > > if (!list_empty(&local->roc_list) || local->scanning) { > err = -EBUSY; > - goto out_unlock; > + goto return_err; can drop braces, "return -EBUSY;" > @@ -3487,12 +3487,12 @@ static int ieee80211_start_radar_detection(struct wiphy *wiphy, > err = ieee80211_link_use_channel(&sdata->deflink, &chanreq, > IEEE80211_CHANCTX_SHARED); > if (err) > - goto out_unlock; > + goto return_err; return err; > wiphy_delayed_work_queue(wiphy, &sdata->deflink.dfs_cac_timer_work, > msecs_to_jiffies(cac_time_ms)); > > - out_unlock: > + return_err: > return err; > and that can then become "return 0" which is much nicer anyway Cf. also https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2024/02/28/return-0-is-better-than-return-ret/ johannes
