[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9327cc83-448e-8404-af00-73f6409e269e@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:36:09 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] char/tpm: Less checks in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe() after
error detection
>> @@ -683,13 +683,10 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_probe(struct vio_dev *vio_dev,
>> reg_crq_cleanup:
>> dma_unmap_single(dev, ibmvtpm->crq_dma_handle,
>> CRQ_RES_BUF_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
>> -cleanup:
>> - if (ibmvtpm) {
>> - if (crq_q->crq_addr)
>> - free_page((unsigned long)crq_q->crq_addr);
>> - kfree(ibmvtpm);
>> - }
>> -
>
> I think a single cleanup section is better than many labels that just
> avoid a single null check.
I proposed to delete two unnecessary condition checks together with
an adjustment of jump targets.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists