Re: Undo aic7xxx changes (now rc7+aic20030603)

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

Hello all,

looking at code around my problem I discovered this:

static inline void * __kmem_cache_alloc (kmem_cache_t *cachep, int flags)
{
        unsigned long save_flags;
        void* objp;

        kmem_cache_alloc_head(cachep, flags);
try_again:
        local_irq_save(save_flags);
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
        {
                cpucache_t *cc = cc_data(cachep);

                if (cc) {
                        if (cc->avail) {
                                STATS_INC_ALLOCHIT(cachep);
                                objp = cc_entry(cc)[--cc->avail];
                        } else {
                                STATS_INC_ALLOCMISS(cachep);
                                objp = kmem_cache_alloc_batch(cachep,cc,flags);
                                if (!objp)
                                        goto alloc_new_slab_nolock;
                        }
                } else {
                        spin_lock(&cachep->spinlock);
                        objp = kmem_cache_alloc_one(cachep);
                        spin_unlock(&cachep->spinlock);
                }
        }
#else
        objp = kmem_cache_alloc_one(cachep);
#endif
        local_irq_restore(save_flags);
        return objp;
alloc_new_slab:  
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
        spin_unlock(&cachep->spinlock);
alloc_new_slab_nolock:
#endif
        local_irq_restore(save_flags);
        if (kmem_cache_grow(cachep, flags))
                /* Someone may have stolen our objs.  Doesn't matter, we'll
                 * just come back here again.
                 */
                goto try_again;
        return NULL;
} 
  

I suggest it for most-absurd-goto-usage-award.

1) There seems to be no reference for symbol "alloc_new_slab"
2) "spin_unlock" (right below) is never reached
3) The not-ifdef'ed code below is only used if CONFIG_SMP
4) The code "alloc_new_slab_nolock" is referenced only once by a goto
   (why not simply pasted there?)

This does not look like a problem, it only is damn ugly. I have no idea 
what this code actually does, but it looks patched-to-the-limit. Has 
anybody reviewed slab regarding CONFIG_SMP?

Regards,
Stephan