Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] Mixing goto-based error handling and scope-based guard() cleanup in the same function. --
commit 70fc208f5f44114137a3c935785ed1ab665ae0e0 Author: Ye Liu <[email protected]> tracing/fgraph: convert process/thread iterator to for_each_process_thread_rculock This commit replaces the manual rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() pair combined with the for_each_process_thread() loop in fgraph.c with the for_each_process_thread_rculock() macro, which scopes the RCU read lock to the loop body via scoped_guard(rcu). > diff --git a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c > index 40d373d65f9b9..f797ce1192233 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c [ ... ] > @@ -1057,11 +1057,10 @@ static int alloc_retstack_tasklist(unsigned long > **ret_stack_list) > } > } > > - rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_process_thread(g, t) { > + for_each_process_thread_rculock(g, t) { > if (start == end) { > ret = -EAGAIN; > - goto unlock; > + goto free; [Severity: Low] Does this mix scope-based cleanup with manual goto-based error handling? By replacing the manual RCU lock with for_each_process_thread_rculock() (which uses scoped_guard(rcu)), the function now relies on scope-based cleanup for the RCU lock, but still jumps to a manual "goto free" label for the memory cleanup below. The cleanup guidelines state that for a given routine, we should convert all resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or convert none of them, avoiding mixed usage in the same function. > } > > if (t->ret_stack == NULL) { [ ... ] > @@ -1074,9 +1073,6 @@ static int alloc_retstack_tasklist(unsigned long > **ret_stack_list) > t->ret_stack = ret_stack_list[start++]; > } > } > - > -unlock: > - rcu_read_unlock(); > free: > for (i = start; i < end; i++) > kmem_cache_free(fgraph_stack_cachep, ret_stack_list[i]); -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=11
