On 6/25/24 17:30, Johannes Berg wrote:
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?
Yup, good point. Will do in next version. Thanks for the input.
[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;"
That's correct.
@@ -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;
Yep.
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/
Indeed! Will do. Thanks.
