Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: ti: knav_qmss_queue: do device_node auto cleanup

[Kousik Sanagavarapu <five231003@gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 06:12:39PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Kousik,
> 
> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
> 

[...]

> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
> >> drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1853:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1840:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1835:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1831:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1822:4: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                            goto err;
>                            ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1826:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *queue_pools __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1818:4: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                            goto err;
>                            ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1826:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *queue_pools __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1810:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1826:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *queue_pools __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1813:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *pdsps __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1806:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1826:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *queue_pools __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1813:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *pdsps __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1795:3: error: cannot jump from this goto statement to its label
>                    goto err;
>                    ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1855:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *regions __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1826:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *queue_pools __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1813:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *pdsps __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c:1801:22: note: jump bypasses initialization of variable with __attribute__((cleanup))
>            struct device_node *qmgrs __free(device_node) =
>                                ^
>    9 errors generated.

Seems like gcc didn't catch this when I compiled locally.

Normally, this would be fixed if we placed braces around the individual
initialization blocks, that is, say

	{
		struct device_node *qmgrs __free(device_node) =
			of_get_child_by_name(node, "qmgrs");
		...
	}


That would make the code look a lot more dirty though and is purely
unnecessary.  So I'd say I'd drop this patch and do a v2 with the
remaining two patches.  Thoughts?

There's also some stuff with classes but that too is not really worth
doing because the code will end up looking very ugly.

Thanks