Re: [PATCH 08/29] ref_transaction_commit(): remove local variable n

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> This microoptimization doesn't make a significant difference in speed.
> And it causes problems if somebody ever wants to modify the function to
> add updates to a transaction as part of processing it, as will happen
> shortly.
>
> Make the same change in initial_ref_transaction_commit().
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

This particular change also makes the end result easier to read.  I
have no objection to officially declaring that we do support
"adding" new transaction update while we are committing (and we do
not support other futzing like "removing" or "reordering"), either.

I expect that somewhere in this series transaction->nr will not stay
constant even if the client code of ref-transaction API makes no
direct call that adds a new update[] element, though, even if it is
not done in this patch.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]