[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250401083854.6cp2efo7wxvxjcdd@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:08:54 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/10] cpufreq: Split cpufreq_online()
On 28-03-25, 21:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> +out_unlock:
> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> + return ret;
> +
> +out_destroy_policy:
> + for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus)
> + remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, j, get_cpu_device(j));
> +
> +out_offline_policy:
> + if (cpufreq_driver->offline)
> + cpufreq_driver->offline(policy);
> +
> +out_exit_policy:
> + if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
> + cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> +
> +out_clear_policy:
> + cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
> +
> + goto out_unlock;
Instead of jumping back to the function, won't declaring the label here and
jumping from the earlier code to the end of function more readable ?
goto out_unlock;
out_destroy_policy:
for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus)
remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, j, get_cpu_device(j));
out_offline_policy:
if (cpufreq_driver->offline)
cpufreq_driver->offline(policy);
out_exit_policy:
if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
out_clear_policy:
cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
out_unlock:
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
return ret;
Either ways:
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists