From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932184AbdJXO0i (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:26:38 -0400
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:49269 "EHLO
        aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750908AbdJXO0g (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 24 Oct 2017 10:26:36 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:26:15 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Garry Hurley <garry.hurley.jr@gmail.com>
Cc: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: drm/i915/gvt: Use common error handling code in
 shadow_workload_ring_buffer()
Message-ID: <20171024142615.t3y5atz6nulkq55h@mwanda>
References: <f563de94-afaa-ecde-2907-d6baaad65939@users.sourceforge.net>
 <87efpsiu7r.fsf@intel.com>
 <636f6272-9074-53dc-2c90-cbb4a7cd0901@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1A433E6A-DE06-4407-9E33-3CBBA4ADF01B@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1A433E6A-DE06-4407-9E33-3CBBA4ADF01B@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

The point of unwind code is to undo what was done earlier.  If a
function allocates a list of things, using standard unwind style makes
it simpler, safer and more readable.

This isn't the case here.  Instead of making the code more readable,
we're making it more convoluted.  It's just that two out of three error
messages happened to be the same and Markus wants to save a bit of
memory by using the same string.  The memory savings is not so big that
it's worth making the code less readable.

regards,
dan carpenter