| Message ID | 8e1e75c4-3a80-00c3-2697-37fb1c86f7a1@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
Am 02.06.2017 14:39, schrieb Milan P. Gandhi: > Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine > in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for > extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. > > Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) > fcoe_dev_setup(); > > rc = fcoe_if_init(); > + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > + > if (rc) > - goto out_free; > + goto out_destroy; > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > return 0; > if you do that, why not if (!rc) return 0; re, wh > -out_free: > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > out_destroy: > destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); > return rc; > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Milan P. Gandhi wrote: > Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine > in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for > extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. > > Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) > fcoe_dev_setup(); > > rc = fcoe_if_init(); > + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > + > if (rc) > - goto out_free; > + goto out_destroy; > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); That's what I was thinking of, but it's not a RESEND, but rather a v2. You need to explain under the --- what is the change since the original submission. julia > return 0; > > -out_free: > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > out_destroy: > destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); > return rc; >
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 02.06.2017 14:39, schrieb Milan P. Gandhi: > > Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine > > in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for > > extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) > > fcoe_dev_setup(); > > > > rc = fcoe_if_init(); > > + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > + > > if (rc) > > - goto out_free; > > + goto out_destroy; > > > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > return 0; > > > if you do that, why not > if (!rc) return 0; I agree with Dan. If's should be for failures. julia > > re, > wh > > > > > -out_free: > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > out_destroy: > > destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); > > return rc; > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
I'm fine with this version... regards, dan carpenter
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 03:01:29PM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 02.06.2017 14:39, schrieb Milan P. Gandhi: > > Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine > > in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for > > extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. > > > > Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c > > @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) > > fcoe_dev_setup(); > > > > rc = fcoe_if_init(); > > + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > + > > if (rc) > > - goto out_free; > > + goto out_destroy; > > > > - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); > > return 0; > > > if you do that, why not > if (!rc) return 0; Gar... No. Please don't get creative with the last if statement. regards, dan carpenter
On 06/03/2017 08:04 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > I'm fine with this version... > > regards, > dan carpenter > Thanks everyone for the review and suggestions!! Regards, Milan.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c index ea21e7b..a2cf3d0 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c @@ -2523,14 +2523,13 @@ static int __init fcoe_init(void) fcoe_dev_setup(); rc = fcoe_if_init(); + mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); + if (rc) - goto out_free; + goto out_destroy; - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); return 0; -out_free: - mutex_unlock(&fcoe_config_mutex); out_destroy: destroy_workqueue(fcoe_wq); return rc;
Simplify the check for return code of fcoe_if_init routine in fcoe_init function such that we could eliminate need for extra 'out_free' label and duplicate mutex_unlock statement. Signed-off-by: Milan P. Gandhi <mgandhi@redhat.com> --- drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)