Re: [PATCH 1/2] Massive code cleanup of sys_msync()

[Anton Salikhmetov]

2008/1/15, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:02:54 +0300 Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
>
> > 2008/1/15, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:02:44PM +0300, Anton Salikhmetov wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -33,71 +34,65 @@ asmlinkage long sys_msync(unsigned long start, size_t len, int flags)
> > > >       unsigned long end;
> > > >       struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> > > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > -     int unmapped_error = 0;
> > > > -     int error = -EINVAL;
> > > > +     int error = 0, unmapped_error = 0;
> > > >
> > > >       if (flags & ~(MS_ASYNC | MS_INVALIDATE | MS_SYNC))
> > > > -             goto out;
> > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > >       if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
> > > > -             goto out;
> > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > The goto out for a simple return style is used quite commonly in kernel
> > > code to have a single return statement which makes code maintaince, e.g.
> > > adding locks or allocations simpler.  Not sure that getting rid of it
> > > makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > Sorry, I can't agree. That's what is written in the CodingStyle document:
> >
> > The goto statement comes in handy when a function exits from multiple
> > locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done.
>
> CodingStyle does not try to cover Everything.  Nor do we want it to.
>
> At any rate, there is a desire for functions to have a single point
> of return, regardless of the amount of cleanup to be done, so I agree
> with Christoph's comments.

Should I replace "return -EINVAL;" statement with the following?

{
    error = -EINVAL;
    goto out;
}

>
>
> > The second part of requirement does not hold true for the sys_msync() routine.
> >
> > >
> > > > +             file = vma->vm_file;
> > > > +             if ((flags & MS_SYNC) && file && (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> > >
> > > Given that file is assigned just above it would be more readable to test
> > > it first.
> >
> > The second part of my solution changes this code, anyway.
> >
> > >
> > > > +                     if (error)
> > > > +                             return error;
> > >
> > > This should be an goto out, returns out of the middle of the function
> > > make reading and maintaining the code not so nice.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't think so. No "common cleanup" is needed here.
>
>
> ---
> ~Randy
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/