lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
Date
Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2003 23:22 schrieb Rob Wilkens:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:06, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Please don't do such things. The next time locking is changed and a lock
> > is needed here, some poor guy has to go through that and change all
> > back to goto.
> > This may not be applicable here, but as a general rule, don't do it.
> > I speak from experience.
> >
> > As for efficiency, that is the compiler's job.
>
> I say "please don't use goto" and instead have a "cleanup_lock" function
> and add that before all the return statements.. It should not be a
> burden. Yes, it's asking the developer to work a little harder, but the
> end result is better code.

It's code that causes added hardship for anybody checking the locking.
It becomes impossible to see whether locks are balanced and turns into
a nightmare as soon as you need error exits from several depths of locking
or with and without memory to be freed.

Please listen to experience.

err_out_buffer:
kfree(buffer);
err_out_nobuffer:
up(&sem);
err_out_nolock:
return err;

is pretty much the only readable construction.

Regards
Oliver

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.114 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site