From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753389Ab1LTXfL (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:35:11 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:43667 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752503Ab1LTXfI (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:35:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:35:02 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Mandeep Singh Baines Cc: Li Zefan , LKML , Frederic Weisbecker , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Paul Menage Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: separate out cgroup_attach_proc error handling code Message-ID: <20111220233502.GN10752@google.com> References: <1324422873-31001-1-git-send-email-msb@chromium.org> <1324422873-31001-6-git-send-email-msb@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1324422873-31001-6-git-send-email-msb@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 03:14:33PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote: > @@ -2067,9 +2067,10 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader) > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > /* methods shouldn't be called if no task is actually migrating */ > - retval = 0; > - if (!group_size) > + if (!group_size) { > + retval = 0; > goto out_free_group_list; > + } Eh... I don't think this is an improvement. It's just different. > @@ -2126,20 +2127,20 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader) > */ > synchronize_rcu(); > cgroup_wakeup_rmdir_waiter(cgrp); > - retval = 0; > + flex_array_free(group); > + return 0; Hmm... maybe goto out_free_group_list? Duplicating cleanup on success and failure paths can lead future updaters forget one of them. The exit path in this function isn't pretty but I don't think the proposed patch improves it either. Thanks. -- tejun