On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 18:16:01 +0100
Markus Elfring <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 18:08:29 +0100
>
> Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused
> in an if branch of this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> index 61a1bfb68ac7..8604ce4f3fee 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c
> @@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ static int vfio_set_trigger(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev, int index,
>
> trigger = eventfd_ctx_fdget(fd);
> if (IS_ERR(trigger)) {
> - kfree(irq->name);
> - return PTR_ERR(trigger);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trigger);
> + goto free_name;
> }
>
> irq->trigger = trigger;
> @@ -202,9 +202,10 @@ static int vfio_set_trigger(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev, int index,
> irq_set_status_flags(irq->hwirq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
> ret = request_irq(irq->hwirq, handler, 0, irq->name, irq);
> if (ret) {
> - kfree(irq->name);
> eventfd_ctx_put(trigger);
> irq->trigger = NULL;
> +free_name:
> + kfree(irq->name);
> return ret;
> }
>
TBH, this doesn't seem like a worthwhile exit point consolidation. A
change like this might be justified if there were some common unlock
code that could be shared, but for a simple free and return errno by
jumping to a different exception block, rather than even a common exit
block, I don't see the value. Thanks,
Alex
> TBH, this doesn't seem like a worthwhile exit point consolidation. A
> change like this might be justified if there were some common unlock
> code that could be shared, but for a simple free and return errno by
> jumping to a different exception block, rather than even a common exit
> block, I don't see the value.
Can it be helpful to store the shown kfree() call only once
in this function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:32:23 +0100
Markus Elfring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > TBH, this doesn't seem like a worthwhile exit point consolidation. A
> > change like this might be justified if there were some common unlock
> > code that could be shared, but for a simple free and return errno by
> > jumping to a different exception block, rather than even a common exit
> > block, I don't see the value.
>
> Can it be helpful to store the shown kfree() call only once
> in this function implementation?
I don't believe it's worthwhile, it's a simple function with simple
exit paths and consolidating those exit paths for a trivial kfree() is
unnecessarily complex. Thanks,
Alex