From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cornelia Huck Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:37:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM-S390: Less function calls in kvm_s390_import_bp_data() after error detection Message-Id: <20160822213736.62f1ae29.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <82b84c9c-38a4-4d17-910f-312668dbae01@users.sourceforge.net> <47f88a11-b949-28ed-5589-925888a37574@users.sourceforge.net> <20160822150048.309a3e10.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Christian =?UTF-8?B?Qm9ybnRyw6RnZXI=?= , David Hildenbrand , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?UTF-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:56:47 +0200 SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> @@ -273,10 +273,12 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.nr_hw_wp = nr_wp; > >> vcpu->arch.guestdbg.hw_wp_info = wp_info; > >> return 0; > >> -error: > >> - kfree(bp_data); > >> - kfree(wp_info); > >> +free_bp_info: > >> kfree(bp_info); > >> +free_wp_info: > >> + kfree(wp_info); > >> +free_bp_data: > >> + kfree(bp_data); > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > > > > This replaces a perfectly fine fallthrough > > The usage of a single goto label like "error" seems to be convenient. > But how do these habits fit to the current Linux coding style convention? > > > > with some horrible labels. > > Do they explain better which processing steps should be performed > for an efficient exception handling in this function implementation? *sigh* It's _exception handling_. It does not need to be "efficient", it needs to be easily parsable by humans. If in doubt, the compiler will be _much_ better at optimizing that kind of stuff anyway. So still NACK.