Re: question on common error-handling idiom

[Jan Engelhardt]

>There's something I've been wondering about for a while.  There is a lot of code
>in linux that looks something like this:
>
>err = -ERRORCODE
>if (error condition)
>	goto out;

That's because there might something as:

err = -EPERM;
if(error) { goto out; }
do something;
if(error2) { goto out; }
do something more;
if(error3) { goto out; }

Is shorter than:

if(error) { err = -EPERM; goto out; }
do something;
if(error2) { err = -EPERM; goto out; }
do something more;
if(error3) { err = -EPERM; goto out; }


>Is there any particular reason why the former is preferred?  Is the compiler

To keep it short. Because it might have been worse than just err =xxx:

if(error) {
    do this and that;
    and more;
    even more;
    more more;
    goto out;
}

Repeating that over and over is not that good. So we wrap it a little bit to do
a "staircase" deinitialization:

err = -EPERM;
if(error) { goto this_didnot_work; }
...
err = -ENOSPC;
if(error) { goto that_didnot_work; }


this_didnot_work:
  all uninitializations needed

that_didnot_work:
  all other uninit's

  return err;


So to summarize, it's done to reduce code whilst keeping the error code around
until we actually leave the function.


My â 0.02!


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
Gesellschaft fÃr Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 GÃttingen, www.gwdg.de
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/