Return-Path: <cyrus@holtmann.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHrH25RjgwrxrXgi02GD=EzxAakfibNHn8rBzYpFKysGE7BycA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1414418485-20786-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com>
	<CABD6X-+fR5tjmATzaiTfSORaubN=C8hPTLK3BALzsQsUjT4pXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHrH25RjgwrxrXgi02GD=EzxAakfibNHn8rBzYpFKysGE7BycA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:44:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CABD6X-+hF70C66u9YMLr4o7CASz98Y7BbirvbH4gHVB6JJdM3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gatt: Fix wrong function exit
From: Marcin Kraglak <marcin.kraglak@tieto.com>
To: Arman Uguray <armansito@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrei Emeltchenko <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com>,
	"linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org development"
	<linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-bluetooth.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Arman,

On 27 October 2014 15:41, Arman Uguray <armansito@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Marcin,
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Marcin Kraglak
> <marcin.kraglak@tieto.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andrei,
>>
>> On 27 October 2014 15:01, Andrei Emeltchenko
>> <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@intel.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  src/shared/gatt-helpers.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c b/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> index d751d5a..4f53de3 100644
>>> --- a/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> +++ b/src/shared/gatt-helpers.c
>>> @@ -1029,7 +1029,7 @@ static void discover_included_cb(uint8_t opcode, const void *pdu,
>>>                 data = new_read_included(cur_result);
>>>                 if (!data) {
>>>                         success = false;
>>> -                       goto done;
>>> +                       goto failed;
>>>                 }
>>>
>>>                 read_included(data);
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>> In fact exit here is wrong and should be goto failed.
>> Anyway, I found that we call goto failed more times in this function
>> than goto done, so maybe it is better to change labels like this:
>> failed:
>>     success = false;
>>
>> done:
>>     if (op->callback)
>>         op->callback(success, att_ecode, final_result, op->user_data);
>>
>> and set success = true before goto done;
>>
>
> Might actually be better leave the current structure as it is, except
> initialize success = false at declaration. Then code would simply call
> goto fail and not set success to false every time.

Sounds good
>
> -Arman

BR
Marcin