Re: [PATCH] crypto/s5p-sss: Use common error handling code in s5p_aes_probe()

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:00:27 +0200
>>
>> Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused
>> at the end of this function.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/crypto/s5p-sss.c | 13 +++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/s5p-sss.c b/drivers/crypto/s5p-sss.c
>> index 7ac657f46d15..ea59e184c199 100644
>> --- a/drivers/crypto/s5p-sss.c
>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/s5p-sss.c
>> @@ -863,16 +863,13 @@ static int s5p_aes_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	pdata->irq_fc = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>  	if (pdata->irq_fc < 0) {
>>  		err = pdata->irq_fc;
>> -		dev_warn(dev, "feed control interrupt is not available.\n");
>> -		goto err_irq;
>> +		goto report_failure;
>>  	}
>>  	err = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, pdata->irq_fc, NULL,
>>  					s5p_aes_interrupt, IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>  					pdev->name, pdev);
>> -	if (err < 0) {
>> -		dev_warn(dev, "feed control interrupt is not available.\n");
>> -		goto err_irq;
>> -	}
>> +	if (err < 0)
>> +		goto report_failure;
> 
> No, one exit path just to report error does not seem to be more readable.

I got an other development opinion on such an aspect.


> Instead, printing error after the code causing it looks to me
> as common pattern, easy to maintain.

Do you care for variations in corresponding messages?


> This patch does not bring improvement, in my opinion.

How do you generally think about the possibility for a bit of code reduction?


>>  
>>  	pdata->busy = false;
>>  	pdata->dev = dev;
>> @@ -906,6 +903,10 @@ static int s5p_aes_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	s5p_dev = NULL;
>>  
>>  	return err;
>> +
>> +report_failure:
>> +	dev_warn(dev, "feed control interrupt is not available.\n");
>> +	goto err_irq;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int s5p_aes_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> -- 
>> 2.14.2
>>


Would you like to take another look at other adjustments in source files
which are affected by the shown change pattern?

Regards,
Markus