On Wed. 11 May 2022 at 16:11, z <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 2022-05-11 14:44:50, "Marc Kleine-Budde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 10.05.2022 23:38:38, Bernard Zhao wrote:
> >> The variable fi and bi only used in branch if (!dev->prev_siblings)
> >> , fi & bi not kmalloc in else branch, so move kfree into branch
> >> if (!dev->prev_siblings),this change is to cleanup the code a bit.
> >
> >Please move the variable declaration into that scope, too. Adjust the
> >error handling accordingly.
>
> Hi Marc:
>
> I am not sure if there is some gap.
> If we move the variable declaration into that scope, then each error branch has to do the kfree job, like:
> if (err) {
> dev_err(dev->netdev->dev.parent,
> "unable to read %s firmware info (err %d)\n",
> pcan_usb_pro.name, err);
> kfree(bi);
> kfree(fi);
> kfree(usb_if);
>
> return err;
> }
> I am not sure if this looks a little less clear?
> Thanks!
A cleaner way would be to move all the content of the if
(!dev->prev_siblings) to a new function.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
On 11.05.2022 17:28:26, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> On Wed. 11 May 2022 at 16:11, z <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At 2022-05-11 14:44:50, "Marc Kleine-Budde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On 10.05.2022 23:38:38, Bernard Zhao wrote:
> > >> The variable fi and bi only used in branch if (!dev->prev_siblings)
> > >> , fi & bi not kmalloc in else branch, so move kfree into branch
> > >> if (!dev->prev_siblings),this change is to cleanup the code a bit.
> > >
> > >Please move the variable declaration into that scope, too. Adjust the
> > >error handling accordingly.
> >
> > Hi Marc:
> >
> > I am not sure if there is some gap.
> > If we move the variable declaration into that scope, then each error branch has to do the kfree job, like:
> > if (err) {
> > dev_err(dev->netdev->dev.parent,
> > "unable to read %s firmware info (err %d)\n",
> > pcan_usb_pro.name, err);
> > kfree(bi);
> > kfree(fi);
> > kfree(usb_if);
> >
> > return err;
> > }
> > I am not sure if this looks a little less clear?
> > Thanks!
>
> A cleaner way would be to move all the content of the if
> (!dev->prev_siblings) to a new function.
Good idea.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
At 2022-05-11 16:28:26, "Vincent MAILHOL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed. 11 May 2022 at 16:11, z <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 2022-05-11 14:44:50, "Marc Kleine-Budde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On 10.05.2022 23:38:38, Bernard Zhao wrote:
>> >> The variable fi and bi only used in branch if (!dev->prev_siblings)
>> >> , fi & bi not kmalloc in else branch, so move kfree into branch
>> >> if (!dev->prev_siblings),this change is to cleanup the code a bit.
>> >
>> >Please move the variable declaration into that scope, too. Adjust the
>> >error handling accordingly.
>>
>> Hi Marc:
>>
>> I am not sure if there is some gap.
>> If we move the variable declaration into that scope, then each error branch has to do the kfree job, like:
>> if (err) {
>> dev_err(dev->netdev->dev.parent,
>> "unable to read %s firmware info (err %d)\n",
>> pcan_usb_pro.name, err);
>> kfree(bi);
>> kfree(fi);
>> kfree(usb_if);
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>> I am not sure if this looks a little less clear?
>> Thanks!
>
>A cleaner way would be to move all the content of the if
>(!dev->prev_siblings) to a new function.
Hi Vincent Mailhol:
Got it.
This seems to be a good idea, i would resubmit one patch V2.
Thanks!
BR//Bernard
>
>Yours sincerely,
>Vincent Mailhol