On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:43, Oliver Neukum wrote: > It's code that causes added hardship for anybody checking the locking. I can certainly see where it would seem "easier" to match "one lock" to "one unlock" if your troubleshooting a locking issue. "easier" is the motivation behind using goto.. Laziness.. that's all it is. -Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Robert Love
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Emiliano Gabrielli
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Ryan Anderson
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Prev by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto example
- Next by Date: Re: Moderated forum for linux-kernel
- Previous by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Next by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]