[PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Fabio M. De Francesco]

In function rtw_free_netdev() there are two "goto" jumps to a no-op exit
label called "RETURN". Remove the label and return in line.

Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
index 7a6fcc96081a..d680bfba7f5d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
@@ -117,18 +117,15 @@ void rtw_free_netdev(struct net_device *netdev)
 	struct rtw_netdev_priv_indicator *pnpi;
 
 	if (!netdev)
-		goto RETURN;
+		return;
 
 	pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);
 
 	if (!pnpi->priv)
-		goto RETURN;
+		return;
 
 	vfree(pnpi->priv);
 	free_netdev(netdev);
-
-RETURN:
-	return;
 }
 
 int rtw_change_ifname(struct adapter *padapter, const char *ifname)
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Ira Weiny]

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> In function rtw_free_netdev() there are two "goto" jumps to a no-op exit
> label called "RETURN". Remove the label and return in line.

Thanks for the patch!  However, A good commit message lists the why and what of
a change.  I don't see a why for this commit?

FWIW (For what it's worth) I know of a couple of good reasons for this change
but you should get in the habit of putting that in the commit message.  Even
for obvious things like this.

Anyway, I think this patch can stand on it's own with an updated commit
message.  However, see below...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> index 7a6fcc96081a..d680bfba7f5d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> @@ -117,18 +117,15 @@ void rtw_free_netdev(struct net_device *netdev)
>  	struct rtw_netdev_priv_indicator *pnpi;
>  
>  	if (!netdev)
> -		goto RETURN;
> +		return;
>  
>  	pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);
>  
>  	if (!pnpi->priv)
> -		goto RETURN;
> +		return;

This does not look right.  If netdev is not NULL why does this function skip
free_netdev()?

Fabio could you follow up with Larry and/or Phillip and see why the code does
this?  To me it looks like a potential bug.

Thanks!
Ira

>  
>  	vfree(pnpi->priv);
>  	free_netdev(netdev);
> -
> -RETURN:
> -	return;
>  }
>  
>  int rtw_change_ifname(struct adapter *padapter, const char *ifname)
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Fabio M. De Francesco]

On venerd? 1 aprile 2022 22:41:40 CEST Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > In function rtw_free_netdev() there are two "goto" jumps to a no-op exit
> > label called "RETURN". Remove the label and return in line.
> 
> Thanks for the patch!  However, A good commit message lists the why and what of
> a change.  I don't see a why for this commit?

Yes I forgot the "why" :(
I'll rework the commit message for v2.

> 
> FWIW (For what it's worth) I know of a couple of good reasons for this change
> but you should get in the habit of putting that in the commit message.  Even
> for obvious things like this.
> 
> Anyway, I think this patch can stand on it's own with an updated commit
> message.  However, see below...
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c | 7 ++-----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> > index 7a6fcc96081a..d680bfba7f5d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/osdep_service.c
> > @@ -117,18 +117,15 @@ void rtw_free_netdev(struct net_device *netdev)
> >  	struct rtw_netdev_priv_indicator *pnpi;
> >  
> >  	if (!netdev)
> > -		goto RETURN;
> > +		return;

Actually this function doesn't need to test for a valid "netdev". There are only
two callers of this function (they are in os_dep/usb_intf.c) and they already test
the pointer soon before calling rtw_free_netdev().

Therefore, I'll remove the test for a valid "netdev" and (obviously) the code has
no more need to return at that point in function.

> >  
> >  	pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);
> >  
> >  	if (!pnpi->priv)
> > -		goto RETURN;
> > +		return;

I cannot see how pnpi->priv might ever be NULL. Pavel Skripkin made me notice
that "in rtw_alloc_etherdev() (I can confirm this information because now I've 
just read the code), if pnpi->priv allocation fails, then netdev will
be just freed.". If "netdev" is already free, this function is never called.

Therefore, I'll remove this test too.

> This does not look right.  If netdev is not NULL why does this function skip
> free_netdev()?

After the two removals I've talked about above, the code will always call 
vfree(pnpi->priv) and then free_netdev(netdev).

Therefore, the code won't anymore skip free_netdev() and the bug is avoided.

> 
> Fabio could you follow up with Larry and/or Phillip and see why the code does
> this?  To me it looks like a potential bug.
> 
> Thanks!
> Ira
> 
> >  
> >  	vfree(pnpi->priv);
> >  	free_netdev(netdev);
> > -
> > -RETURN:
> > -	return;
> >  }
> >  
> >  int rtw_change_ifname(struct adapter *padapter, const char *ifname)
> > -- 
> > 2.34.1
> > 
> 

This is how I think to rework rtw_free_netdev():

void rtw_free_netdev(struct net_device *netdev)
{
        struct rtw_netdev_priv_indicator *pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);

        vfree(pnpi->priv);
        free_netdev(netdev);
}

Am I missing something?

@Greg: please discard this patch; I'll send another that has the purpose
to rework rtw_free_netdev() as I showed above for the purpose to avoid 
redundant tests and avoid the potential skipping of free_netdev() (as Ira 
has correctly noted, currently we have a bug).

Thanks,

Fabio

Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Martin Kaiser]

Thus wrote Fabio M. De Francesco (fmdefrancesco@gmail.com):

> > >  	pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);

> > >  	if (!pnpi->priv)
> > > -		goto RETURN;
> > > +		return;

> I cannot see how pnpi->priv might ever be NULL.

Even if pnpi->priv was NULL, we wouldn't need the check. It's ok to call
vfree(NULL).

> After the two removals I've talked about above, the code will always call 
> vfree(pnpi->priv) and then free_netdev(netdev).

That makes sense.

Best regards,
Martin

Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Fabio M. De Francesco]

On sabato 2 aprile 2022 13:45:33 CEST Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Fabio M. De Francesco (fmdefrancesco@gmail.com):
> 
> > > >  	pnpi = netdev_priv(netdev);
> 
> > > >  	if (!pnpi->priv)
> > > > -		goto RETURN;
> > > > +		return;
> 
> > I cannot see how pnpi->priv might ever be NULL.
> 
> Even if pnpi->priv was NULL, we wouldn't need the check. It's ok to call
> vfree(NULL).
> 
> > After the two removals I've talked about above, the code will always call 
> > vfree(pnpi->priv) and then free_netdev(netdev).
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 
Hi Martin,

Thanks for reminding to me that a vfree() on a NULL pointer is a no-op.
I'm going to submit a new patch with the purpose to re-work rtw_free_netdev().

Thanks again,

Fabio

Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Remove goto to no-op exit label

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 01:41:40PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:35:13PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > In function rtw_free_netdev() there are two "goto" jumps to a no-op exit
> > label called "RETURN". Remove the label and return in line.
> 
> Thanks for the patch!  However, A good commit message lists the why and what of
> a change.  I don't see a why for this commit?

People, stop belly aching about commit messages.

"Delete no-op goto" is sufficient justification.

regards,
dan carpenter