linux-kernel - Re: misc: bh1770glc: Use common error handling code in bh1770_power_state

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8e931bdb-5327-000e-3167-6634ce349f73@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:04:17 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@...nta.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Samu Onkalo <samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: misc: bh1770glc: Use common error handling code in
 bh1770_power_state_store()

>> Adjust jump targets so that a bit of exception handling can be better
>> reused in an if branch of this function.
> 
> What is the benefit brought by this change?

Will you notice that the object code size can be a bit smaller
because the call of the function “pm_runtime_put” is specified at
two places in the implementation in comparison to three places before?

> Anyhow, are you seriously suggesting adding a goto to a label define
> within a if block?

Yes. - For this update suggestion.

> Is this somehow an Halloween related joke?

I hope not.

Another software design approach would be to move two statements from
the affected if branch to the end of this function. Such an adjustment
would have the consequence that the statement “goto unlock” will be
transformed into a jump to a backward target.
Would you prefer such an implementation variant instead?

Regards,
Markus