Re: [PATCH 05/23] staging: wilc1000: rename goto to avoid leading '_' in label name

[Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>]

Hi Dan,

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:41:13 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:35:24AM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:27:44 +0300
> > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:15:01AM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:  
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c index 85af365..8e71c28
> > > > 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wlan.c
> > > > @@ -850,13 +850,13 @@ static void
> > > > wilc_wlan_handle_isr_ext(struct wilc *wilc, u32 int_status) if
> > > > (wilc->rx_buffer) buffer = &wilc->rx_buffer[offset];
> > > >  		else
> > > > -			goto _end_;
> > > > +			goto end;    
> > > 
> > > This isn't related to your patch but this goto doesn't appear to
> > > make any sort of sense.  I have no idea what was intended.
> > >   
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing it out. I will include these changes in separate
> > patchset.
> > 
> > Yes, the position of goto label can be moved just before
> > wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc), as 'ret' will always be '0' when goto
> > statement is executed.
> > 
> > Actually earlier there were few more goto statement in this function
> > and single label 'end' was used to handle for different cases. But
> > in previous cleanup patches those cases were removed.
> > Now this function can be further refactor by either moving
> > goto label before wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc) or avoid goto use by
> > adding the rx_buffer validation along with size check.
> > 
> > i.e 
> > 
> > end:
> >     wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc)
> > 
> > 
> > OR
> > 
> > 	if (size > 0 && wilc->rx_buffer) {
> > 
> > 	....
> > 	}
> >     	wilc_wlan_handle_rxq(wilc)
> >   
> 
> Actually looking at it now, you could probably just remove the if
> statement.  Hopefully wilc->rx_buffer is non-NULL at this point? Is
> there really any need to call wilc_wlan_handle_rxq() when we haven't
> called wilc_wlan_rxq_add()?
> 

Yes, wilc->rx_buffer would be non NULL value as its only one time
allocated buffer. wilc_wlan_handle_rxq() was called without
wilc_wlan_rxq_add() just as a fail safe to ensure there are no pending
packets in the queue.

Regards,
Ajay

> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
>