Message-ID: <6ff3bdd8-cc32-1cc0-a31a-3a3b48c87f55@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:45:33 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: core: remove goto statement
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, straube.linux@gmail.com,
        martin@kaiser.cx, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, saurav.girepunje@hotmail.com
References: <YYwMq15pQYf7nvt9@Sauravs-MacBook-Air.local>
 <20211110184525.GM2001@kadam>
From:   Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211110184525.GM2001@kadam>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/11/21 12:15 am, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 11:47:15PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> Remove the goto statement from _rtw_init_recv_priv(). In this function goto
>> can be replace by return statement. As on goto label exit, function
>> only return it is not performing any cleanup. Avoiding goto will
>> improve the function readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c | 7 ++-----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>> index 51a13262a226..b38af76f3a67 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_recv.c
>> @@ -58,10 +58,8 @@ int _rtw_init_recv_priv(struct recv_priv *precvpriv, struct adapter *padapter)
>>
>>  	precvpriv->pallocated_frame_buf = vzalloc(NR_RECVFRAME * sizeof(struct recv_frame) + RXFRAME_ALIGN_SZ);
>>
>> -	if (!precvpriv->pallocated_frame_buf) {
>> -		res = _FAIL;
>> -		goto exit;
>> -	}
>> +	if (!precvpriv->pallocated_frame_buf)
>> +		return _FAIL;
> 
> 
> I hate pointless "goto exit;" labels, but there isn't a rule against
> them and I feel like this is not a good enough patch on its own.  There
> is so much other stuff wrong with this function.  It probably *should*
> have some error handling for example.
> 
> I don't think this patch really adds enough value.  Take a look at the
> function and almost every line can be improved...
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

OK, I will send the other patch to improve this function,
Thanks Dan for review.


Regards,
Saurav