On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Liu Aleaxander <aleaxander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > >>it's trivial, not so much an improvement, IMO. > So, shouldn't we do the optimize when there is a way to do that? > > While, I don't think so. And BTW, it's not just a problem of > optimization, but also make it be more sense: JUST call expand when > need. I don't know why you are rejecting about this, especially it did > optimized one call path(as you said), and it doesn't make the code > uglier than before but making it be more sense, and, in fact, a kind > of more readable. I am not rejecting it, I said this is trivial, so accepting it or droping it both are OK for me. I don't think the orignal code is ugly, '< fdt->max_fds' is not checked for expand_files(), but for find_next_zero_bit(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
