[openib-general] [PATCH 0/13] Re-write error cases in CMA routines to simplify code

[Krishna Kumar2]

Hi Sean,

> Most of these seem to be a style issue.  Should error handling be placed 
at the 
> end of the function, or within an if (error) type check?  Keeping it at 
the end 
> of the function tends to make maintenance a little easier, otherwise, we 
end up 
> either duplicating the error handling, or moving it back to the end of 
the function.

Correct. But many patches have just one "go to" case and the error 
handling is
also one line. So an "if (unlikely(err))" (since unlikely is still in 
favour with kernel
community, last I saw) could be used to handle these cases.

But if there is a case of multiple allocation or other failure to be 
handled, then it
makes sense to put those cases at the bottom, like :

if (kmalloc() fails)
        goto out1;
if (another kmalloc fails)
        goto out2;
if (fn_fails)
        goto out3;

out3:
out2:
out1:
etc...

I have avoided changing those codes in this patchset since I believe that 
is the
correct way to do error handling.

Thanks,

- KK