lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/uprobes: Fix the usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() in probe_event_enable()
On 06/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto err_buffer;
> > >
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + err_buffer:
> > > + uprobe_buffer_disable();
> > > +
> >
> > How about avoiding err_buffer label?
> > + if (!ret)
> > + return 0;
> >
> > + uprobe_buffer_disable();
> > +
> >
>
> Oleg, you OK with this update?
>
> I can kill my tests and restart with this update. Or you can resend this
> patch. Or we can just push it as is, and have this be a patch that
> get's queued as a cleanup for 3.17?

Well, if you too think that this change can make the code cleaner I should
probably make it ;)

But, to me

err = init_1();
if (err)
goto err_1;

err = init_2();
if (err)
goto err_2;

return 0;

err_2:
cleanup_2();
err_1:
cleanup_1();

looks better than

err = init_1();
if (err)
goto err_1;

err = init_2();
if (!err)
return 0;

cleanup_2();
err_1:
cleanup_1();

just because the 1st variant is more symmetrical. And in fact it is more
flexible, we might add init_3/etc.

But I won't insist, this is subjective. So please let me know if you still
think it would be better to add this change, I'll send v2.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-01 02:01    [W:0.068 / U:8.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site