[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cff92477-f426-a4c7-fffb-f8bbc378afe7@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:56:47 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM-S390: Less function calls in
kvm_s390_import_bp_data() after error detection
>> @@ -273,10 +273,12 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.nr_hw_wp = nr_wp;
>> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.hw_wp_info = wp_info;
>> return 0;
>> -error:
>> - kfree(bp_data);
>> - kfree(wp_info);
>> +free_bp_info:
>> kfree(bp_info);
>> +free_wp_info:
>> + kfree(wp_info);
>> +free_bp_data:
>> + kfree(bp_data);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>
> This replaces a perfectly fine fallthrough
The usage of a single goto label like "error" seems to be convenient.
But how do these habits fit to the current Linux coding style convention?
> with some horrible labels.
Do they explain better which processing steps should be performed
for an efficient exception handling in this function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists