[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220822135316.ee37696392ff756b1c810059@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:53:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rolf Eike Beer <eb@...ix.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm: pagewalk: make error checks more obvious
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:00:05 +0200 Rolf Eike Beer <eb@...ix.com> wrote:
> The err variable only needs to be checked when it was assigned directly
> before, it is not carried on to any later checks. Move the checks into the
> same "if" conditions where they are assigned. Also just return the error at
> the relevant places. While at it move these err variables to a more local
> scope at some places.
>
> ...
>
> @@ -593,16 +608,15 @@ int walk_page_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t first_index,
> walk.mm = vma->vm_mm;
>
> err = walk_page_test(vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, &walk);
> - if (err > 0) {
> - err = 0;
> - break;
> - } else if (err < 0)
> - break;
> + if (err > 0)
> + return 0;
> + else if (err < 0)
> + return err;
>
> err = __walk_page_range(start_addr, end_addr, &walk);
> if (err)
> - break;
> + return err;
> }
>
> - return err;
> + return 0;
> }
I'm not really a fan of multiple return points - it tends to lead to
locking/resource leaks as the code evolves. I don't really think it's
worth redoing the patch for this reason though; the rest looks good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists