Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756816AbaF3SAI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:00:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7505 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754520AbaF3SAG (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:00:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:58:36 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Srikar Dronamraju , Masami Hiramatsu , Namhyung Kim , Tom Zanussi , "zhangwei(Jovi)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/uprobes: Fix the usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() in probe_event_enable() Message-ID: <20140630175836.GB21918@redhat.com> References: <20140627170116.GA18298@redhat.com> <20140627170146.GA18332@redhat.com> <20140630170409.GD5619@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140630132126.5479795e@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140630132126.5479795e@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/30, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530 > Srikar Dronamraju 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. -- 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/