Re: [RFC bpf-next 3/4] tools/bpf: bpftool, split the function do_dump()

[Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

On 9/20/2018 12:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:51:42 +0900, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> +static int dump_map_elem(int fd, void *key, void *value,
>> +			 struct bpf_map_info *map_info, struct btf *btf,
>> +			 json_writer_t *btf_wtr)
>> +{
>> +	int num_elems = 0;
>> +
>> +	if (!bpf_map_lookup_elem(fd, key, value)) {
>> +		if (json_output) {
>> +			print_entry_json(map_info, key, value, btf);
>> +		} else {
>> +			if (btf) {
>> +				struct btf_dumper d = {
>> +					.btf = btf,
>> +					.jw = btf_wtr,
>> +					.is_plain_text = true,
>> +				};
>> +
>> +				do_dump_btf(&d, map_info, key, value);
>> +			} else {
>> +				print_entry_plain(map_info, key, value);
>> +			}
>> +			num_elems++;
>> +		}
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* lookup error handling */
>> +	if (map_is_map_of_maps(map_info->type) ||
>> +	    map_is_map_of_progs(map_info->type))
>> +		goto out;
>> +
> 
> nit: why not just return?  the goto seems to only do a return anyway,
>       is this suggested by some coding style?  Is it to help the
>       compiler?  I see people do this from time to time..

Thanks for reviewing. I agree, goto and the label isn't needed. I will 
fix it.

-Prashant
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +out:
>> +	return num_elems;
> 
>