>> @@ -3682,7 +3678,7 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info
>> *fs_info)
>> counting = false;
>> goto again;
>> }
>> -error:
>> +free_path:
>> btrfs_free_path(path);
>> if (enospc_errors) {
>> btrfs_info(fs_info, "%d enospc errors during balance",
>> @@ -3692,6 +3688,10 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info
>> *fs_info)
>> }
>>
>> return ret;
>> +
>> +unlock:
>> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
>> + goto free_path;
>> }
>
> This is also an anti-pattern,
I got an other software development opinion for this use case.
> the label followed by a goto jumping back to the exit/cleanup block,
> right at the end of a function.
I find that this way can be useful for efficient exception handling.
> I've sent some patches in the past to clean that up
Interesting …
> and don't want to reintroduce it.
Would you like to reconsider this view if the object code size
could be reduced a bit for the affected function implementation?
Regards,
Markus
