On 19/07/16 16:56, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -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?

You only want to call it in the first error case (allocation failure).

quoted

+free_tmr:
	kfree(tmr);

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

I think this just doesn't matter. If it were a hot path, yes. But trying
to do micro-optimizations in an error path is just not worth the effort.

I like a linear error path containing all the needed cleanups best.


Juergen