Re: isofs: One check less in isofs_read_inode() after error detection

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

 



> I agree that
> 
> fail:
>         goto out;
> 
> in the original code is awkward and we can get rid of it.

How would you like to change this place instead?


> However renaming labels is IMO pointless and
> 
>>  	if (bh)
>> +release_bh:
>>  		brelse(bh);
>>  	return ret;
> 
> is just disgusting.

I know that it can be occasionally harder to achieve the desired consensus.

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



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux