Why do some kernel programmers use goto instead of simple while loops?

Historical context: We should remember that Dijkstra wrote Goto Considered Harmful in 1968, when a lot of programmers used goto as a replacement for structured programming (if, while, for, etc.).

It’s 44 years later, and it’s rare to find this use of goto in the wild. Structured programming has already won, long ago.

Case analysis:

The example code looks like this:

    SETUP...
again:
    COMPUTE SOME VALUES...
    if (cmpxchg64(ptr, old_val, val) != old_val)
        goto again;

The structured version looks like this:

SETUP...
do {
    COMPUTE SOME VALUES...
} while (cmpxchg64(ptr, old_val, val) != old_val);

When I look at the structured version, I immediately think, “it’s a loop”. When I look at the goto version, I think of it as a straight line with a “try again” case at the end.

The goto version has both SETUP and COMPUTE SOME VALUES on the same column, which emphasizes that most of the time, control flow passes through both. The structured version puts SETUP and COMPUTE SOME VALUES on different columns, which emphasizes that control may pass through them differently.

The question here is what kind of emphasis do you want to put in the code? You can compare this with goto for error handling:

Structured version:

if (do_something() != ERR) {
    if (do_something2() != ERR) {
        if (do_something3() != ERR) {
            if (do_something4() != ERR) {
                ...

Goto version:

if (do_something() == ERR)  // Straight line
    goto error;             // |
if (do_something2() == ERR) // |
    goto error;             // |
if (do_something3() == ERR) // |
    goto error;             // V
if (do_something4() == ERR) // emphasizes normal control flow
    goto error;

The code generated is basically the same, so we can think of it as a typographical concern, like indentation.