linux-kernel - Re: thunderbolt: Use common error handling code in update_property

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: <2024092511-eloquent-unselect-a0e8@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:42:25 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
	Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
	Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thunderbolt: Use common error handling code in
 update_property_block()

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 11:40:09AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It is fine to use goto as it is described in the document you linked but
> > this what you are doing is certainly not fine, at least in the code I'm
> > maintaining:
> >
> > out_unlock:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&xd->lock);
> >   	mutex_unlock(&xdomain_lock);
> > 	return;
> >
> > out_free_dir:
> > 	tb_property_free_dir(dir);
> > 	goto out_unlock;
> >
> > This "goto out_unlock" adds another goto to upwards which makes it
> > really hard to follow because the flow is not anymore just downwards.
> 
> Would you like to benefit any more from the application of
> scope-based resource management?

Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot