Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/uprobes: Fix the usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() in probe_event_enable()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/