[PATCHv2 7/10] xfs: tidy up some goto labels

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:29:23PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> Rename a label used in xlog_find_head() that I thought was poorly
> chosen.  Also combine two adjacent labels xlog_find_tail() into
> a single label, and give it a more generic name.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <aelder at sgi.com>
> 
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c |   83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c |   20 +++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c
> @@ -739,7 +739,7 @@ xlog_find_head(
>  			goto bp_err;
>  		if (new_blk != -1) {
>  			head_blk = new_blk;
> -			goto bad_blk;
> +			goto fine_tune;
>  		}
>  
>  		/*
> @@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ xlog_find_head(
>  			head_blk = new_blk;
>  	}
>  
> - bad_blk:
> +fine_tune:
>  	/*
>  	 * Now we need to make sure head_blk is not pointing to a block in
>  	 * the middle of a log record.

I don't think "fine_tune" really matches what is being done here
either. "bad_blk" makes sense when you consider that the search is
being terminated due to a log block being found that didn't match
the search criteria. i.e. it is bad.

What we are really doing there at "bad_blk" is validating the head
block we have found, so if you are going to change the label then
"validate_head" makes more sense to me...

> @@ -864,12 +864,12 @@ xlog_find_tail(
>  	if (*head_blk == 0) {				/* special case */
>  		error = xlog_bread(log, 0, 1, bp, &offset);
>  		if (error)
> -			goto bread_err;
> +			goto done;
>  
>  		if (xlog_get_cycle(offset) == 0) {
>  			*tail_blk = 0;
>  			/* leave all other log inited values alone */
> -			goto exit;
> +			goto done;
>  		}
>  	}

These changes look fine, though.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com