Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:07:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:07:25 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:23262 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:07:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:15:49 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Rob Wilkens , Rik van Riel Cc: Matti Aarnio , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? Message-ID: <20030113081549.GL14017@suse.de> References: <1042400094.1208.26.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030112211530.GP27709@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <1042406849.3162.121.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <1042407845.3162.131.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1042407845.3162.131.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/