On Sun, Jan 12 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote: > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:40, Rik van Riel wrote: > > OK, now imagine the dcache locking changing a little bit. > > You need to update this piece of (duplicated) code in half > > a dozen places in just this function and no doubt in dozens > > of other places all over fs/*.c. > > > > >From a maintenance point of view, a goto to a single block > > of error handling code is easier to maintain. > > > > There's no reason, though, that the error handling/cleanup code can't be > in an entirely separate function, and if speed is needed, there's no > reason it can't be an "inline" function. Or am I oversimplifying things > again? *plonk* -- Jens Axboe - 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/
References:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Matti Aarnio
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rik van Riel
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.5.56] net/ipv4/route.c doesn't compile without /procsupport
- Next by Date: usb-storage problem with >2.4.19
- 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]