Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Cleanup kvm_arch_init error path

David Hildenbrand
2019-10-02T08:20:33Z

On 02.10.19 10:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 02/10/2019 10.01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.10.19 09:56, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> Both kvm_s390_gib_destroy and debug_unregister test if the needed
>>> pointers are not NULL and hence can be called unconditionally.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 18 +++++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> index 895fb2006c0d..66720d69cd24 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>> @@ -458,16 +458,14 @@ static void kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init(void)
>>>
>>> int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
>>> {
>>> - int rc;
>>> + int rc = -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> kvm_s390_dbf = debug_register("kvm-trace", 32, 1, 7 * sizeof(long));
>>> if (!kvm_s390_dbf)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> - if (debug_register_view(kvm_s390_dbf, &debug_sprintf_view)) {
>>> - rc = -ENOMEM;
>>> - goto out_debug_unreg;
>>> - }
>>> + if (debug_register_view(kvm_s390_dbf, &debug_sprintf_view))
>>> + goto out;
>>>
>>> kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init();
>>>
>>> @@ -475,19 +473,17 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
>>> rc = kvm_register_device_ops(&kvm_flic_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_FLIC);
>>> if (rc) {
>>> pr_err("A FLIC registration call failed with rc=%d\n", rc);
>>> - goto out_debug_unreg;
>>> + goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> rc = kvm_s390_gib_init(GAL_ISC);
>>> if (rc)
>>> - goto out_gib_destroy;
>>> + goto out;
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> -out_gib_destroy:
>>> - kvm_s390_gib_destroy();
>>> -out_debug_unreg:
>>> - debug_unregister(kvm_s390_dbf);
>>> +out:
>>> + kvm_arch_exit();
>>> return rc;
>>> }
>>
>> Wonder why "debug_info_t *kvm_s390_dbf" is not declared as static.
>
> Because it is used in the KVM_EVENT macro?

Ah, makes sense.

>
>> Instead of the two manual calls we could also call kvm_arch_exit().
>
> Huh, isn't that what this patch is doing here?

Lol, still tired and thought only the two labels would get removed. Even
better :)

>
> To me, the patch is looking fine, so
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>

--

Thanks,

David / dhildenb