Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:10:51 -0800 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: don't init workqueues on error |
| |
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:24:54 +0100, Matteo Croce wrote: > bond_create() initialize six workqueues used later on.
Work _entries_ not _queues_ no?
> In the unlikely event that the device registration fails, these > structures are initialized unnecessarily, so move the initialization > out of the error path. Also, create an error label to remove some > duplicated code.
Does the initialization of work entries matter? Is this prep for further changes?
> Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 11 +++++++---- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > index fcb7c2f7f001..8756b6a023d7 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c > @@ -4889,8 +4889,8 @@ int bond_create(struct net *net, const char *name) > bond_setup, tx_queues); > if (!bond_dev) { > pr_err("%s: eek! can't alloc netdev!\n", name);
If this is a clean up patch I think this pr_err() could also be removed? Memory allocation usually fail very loudly so there should be no reason to print more errors.
> - rtnl_unlock(); > - return -ENOMEM; > + res = -ENOMEM; > + goto out_unlock; > } > > /* > @@ -4905,14 +4905,17 @@ int bond_create(struct net *net, const char *name) > bond_dev->rtnl_link_ops = &bond_link_ops; > > res = register_netdevice(bond_dev); > + if (res < 0) { > + free_netdev(bond_dev); > + goto out_unlock; > + } > > netif_carrier_off(bond_dev); > > bond_work_init_all(bond); > > +out_unlock: > rtnl_unlock(); > - if (res < 0) > - free_netdev(bond_dev); > return res; > } >
I do appreciate that the change makes the error handling follow a more usual kernel pattern, but IMHO it'd be even better if the error handling was completely moved. IOW the success path should end with return 0; and the error path should contain free_netdev(bond_dev);
- int res; + int err;
[...]
rtnl_unlock();
return 0;
err_free_netdev: free_netdev(bond_dev); err_unlock: rtnl_unlock(); return err;
I'm just not 100% sold on the improvement made by this patch being worth the code churn, please convince me, respin or get an ack from one of the maintainers? :)
| |