Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2003 23:22 schrieb Rob Wilkens:
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:06, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Please don't do such things. The next time locking is changed and a lock
> > is needed here, some poor guy has to go through that and change all
> > back to goto.
> > This may not be applicable here, but as a general rule, don't do it.
> > I speak from experience.
> >
> > As for efficiency, that is the compiler's job.
>
> I say "please don't use goto" and instead have a "cleanup_lock" function
> and add that before all the return statements..  It should not be a
> burden.  Yes, it's asking the developer to work a little harder, but the
> end result is better code.

It's code that causes added hardship for anybody checking the locking.
It becomes impossible to see whether locks are balanced and turns into
a nightmare as soon as you need error exits from several depths of locking
or with and without memory to be freed.

Please listen to experience.

err_out_buffer:
	kfree(buffer);
err_out_nobuffer:
	up(&sem);
err_out_nolock:
	return err;

is pretty much the only readable construction.

	Regards
		Oliver