Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen-scsiback: One function call less in scsiback_device_action() after error detection

From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xen-scsiback: One function call less in scsiback_device_action() after error detection
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:56:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8806e9cb-4200-8154-7914-6735805dfbe0@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb5824ad-fb09-e471-7dc4-3e32564cc334@suse.com>

>> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static void scsiback_device_action(struct vscsibk_pend *pending_req,
>>  	tmr = kzalloc(sizeof(struct scsiback_tmr), GFP_KERNEL);
>>  	if (!tmr) {
>>  		target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);
>> -		goto err;
>> +		goto do_resp;
>>  	}
> 
> Hmm, I'm not convinced this is an improvement.
> 
> I'd rather rename the new error label to "put_cmd" and get rid of the
> braces in above if statement:
> 
> -	if (!tmr) {
> -		target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);
> -		goto err;
> -	}
> +	if (!tmr)
> +		goto put_cmd;
> 
> and then in the error path:
> 
> -err:
> +put_cmd:
> +	target_put_sess_cmd(se_cmd);

I am unsure on the relevance of this function on such a source position.
Would it make sense to move it further down at the end?

> +free_tmr:
> 	kfree(tmr);

How do you think about to skip this function call after a memory
allocation failure?

Regards,
Markus

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel