On 07.11.2023 11:33, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > The jump to the label 'parse_error' becomes forward, rather > than backward; at the same time, the else branch can be eliminated.
What "else branch" is this referring to? > This also fixes a violation of MISRA C:2012 Rule 15.2. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> > --- > xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c | 14 +++++++------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c > index 09fb8b063ae7..f0191dc148a2 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c > @@ -439,12 +439,7 @@ static void __init process_dom0_ioports_disable(struct > domain *dom0) > { > io_from = simple_strtoul(t, &u, 16); > if ( u == t ) > - { > - parse_error: > - printk("Invalid ioport range <%s> " > - "in dom0_ioports_disable, skipping\n", t); > - continue; > - } > + goto parse_error; > > if ( *u == '\0' ) > io_to = io_from; > @@ -454,7 +449,12 @@ static void __init process_dom0_ioports_disable(struct > domain *dom0) > goto parse_error; > > if ( (*u != '\0') || (io_to < io_from) || (io_to >= 65536) ) > - goto parse_error; > + { > + parse_error: > + printk("Invalid ioport range <%s> " > + "in dom0_ioports_disable, skipping\n", t); > + continue; > + } > > printk("Disabling dom0 access to ioport range %04lx-%04lx\n", > io_from, io_to); While purely from how the change looks I think I could live with this kind of code adjustment (not a lot of churn, in particular no re-indentation, no potentially harder to follow use of [new] local variables), this is precisely one of the cases where I think having the label appear before the goto is actually better, for matching how the language works otherwise (things you want to use first need to be declared / defined). Jan
