Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not necessary to use goto for the last check

[Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:42:14AM +0000, Zeng, Star wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qemu-devel [mailto:qemu-devel-
>> bounces+star.zeng=intel.com@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Wei Yang
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 8:38 AM
>> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>> Cc: imammedo@redhat.com; david@redhat.com; Wei Yang
>> <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>; mst@redhat.com
>> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] memory-device: not necessary to use
>> goto for the last check
>> 
>> We are already at the last condition check.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  hw/mem/memory-device.c | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c index
>> 5f2c408036..df3261b32a 100644
>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> @@ -186,7 +186,6 @@ static uint64_t
>> memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
>>      if (!range_contains_range(&as, &new)) {
>>          error_setg(errp, "could not find position in guest address space for "
>>                     "memory device - memory fragmented due to alignments");
>> -        goto out;
>
>Is it better to return 0 (or set new_addr to 0) for this error path and another remaining "goto out" path?
>

I may not get your point.

We set errp which is handled in its caller. By doing so, the error is
propagated.

Do I miss something?

>
>Thanks,
>Star
>
>>      }
>>  out:
>>      g_slist_free(list);
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>> 

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me