[PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:02:58 +0200

Use an additional label so that a bit of exception handling can be better
reused at the end of an if branch.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
index 84a97ca8a6d8..389b8b83afbd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
@@ -304,15 +304,15 @@ static int i40e_register_auxiliary_dev(struct i40e_info *ldev, const char *name)
 	ldev->aux_dev = aux_dev;
 
 	ret = ida_alloc(&i40e_client_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
-		return ret;
-	}
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto free_aux_dev;
+
 	aux_dev->id = ret;
 
 	ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux_dev);
 	if (ret < 0) {
 		ida_free(&i40e_client_ida, aux_dev->id);
+free_aux_dev:
 		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
 		return ret;
 	}
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[Manuel Ebner]

On Wed, 2026-06-10 at 10:20 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:02:58 +0200
> 
> [...]
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> index 84a97ca8a6d8..389b8b83afbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> @@ -304,15 +304,15 @@ static int i40e_register_auxiliary_dev(struct i40e_info *ldev,
> const char *name)
>  	ldev->aux_dev = aux_dev;
>  
>  	ret = ida_alloc(&i40e_client_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto free_aux_dev;
> +
>  	aux_dev->id = ret;
>  
>  	ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux_dev);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		ida_free(&i40e_client_ida, aux_dev->id);
> +free_aux_dev:
>  		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
>  		return ret;
why do you do this? There's no functional change, right?
is it just readability?

Thanks
 Manuel

RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[Loktionov, Aleksandr]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org> On Behalf
> Of Markus Elfring
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 10:20 AM
> To: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Andrew
> Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>;
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>; Jakub Kicinski
> <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; Kitszel,
> Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>; Shiraz Saleem
> <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; kernel-
> janitors@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error
> handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()
> 
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:02:58 +0200
> 
> Use an additional label so that a bit of exception handling can be
> better reused at the end of an if branch.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> index 84a97ca8a6d8..389b8b83afbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
> @@ -304,15 +304,15 @@ static int i40e_register_auxiliary_dev(struct
> i40e_info *ldev, const char *name)
>  	ldev->aux_dev = aux_dev;
> 
>  	ret = ida_alloc(&i40e_client_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto free_aux_dev;
> +
>  	aux_dev->id = ret;
> 
>  	ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux_dev);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		ida_free(&i40e_client_ida, aux_dev->id);
It's not linux kernel error handling.
Please, either leave the original code as-is — the two-line duplication is not a real problem.
Or submit a proper two-label refactor with a clear commit message.

> +free_aux_dev:
>  		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
>  		return ret;
>  	}
> --
> 2.54.0

Re: [PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[Markus Elfring]

>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_client.c
>> @@ -304,15 +304,15 @@ static int i40e_register_auxiliary_dev(struct i40e_info *ldev,
>> const char *name)
>>  	ldev->aux_dev = aux_dev;
>>  
>>  	ret = ida_alloc(&i40e_client_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>> -		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
>> -		return ret;
>> -	}
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto free_aux_dev;
>> +
>>  	aux_dev->id = ret;
>>  
>>  	ret = auxiliary_device_init(aux_dev);
>>  	if (ret < 0) {
>>  		ida_free(&i40e_client_ida, aux_dev->id);
>> +free_aux_dev:
>>  		kfree(i40e_aux_dev);
>>  		return ret;
> why do you do this? There's no functional change, right?
> is it just readability?
Please take another look at corresponding information sources.

* Centralized exiting of functions
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?h=v7.1-rc7#n526

* https://cmu-sei.github.io/secure-coding-standards/sei-cert-c-coding-standard/recommendations/memory-management-mem/mem12-c/



Would you like to increase the application of scope-based resource management?

Regards,
Markus

RE: [PATCH net-next] i40e: Use common error handling code in i40e_register_auxiliary_dev()

[Jagielski, Jedrzej]

From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 10:20 AM

>From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 10:02:58 +0200
>
>Use an additional label so that a bit of exception handling can be better
>reused at the end of an if branch.
>
>This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
>Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

Hi,

Do we really need patches like this one? It's pointless