Hi Jeff,
> On 7 Nov 2014, at 01:46, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> - if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK))
>> - return -EAGAIN;
>> + if (type == READ) {
>> + if (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK)
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> + } else {
>> + if (flags & RWF_DSYNC)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>
> Minor nit, but I'd rather read something that looks like this:
>
> if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK))
> return -EAGAIN;
> else if (type == WRITE && (flags & RWF_DSYNC))
> return -EINVAL;
But your version is less logically efficient for the case where "type == READ" is true and "flags & RWF_NONBLOCK" is false because your version then has to do the "if (type == WRITE" check before discovering it does not need to take that branch either, whilst the original version does not have to do such a test at all.
Best regards,
Anton
> I won't lose sleep over it, though.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
University of Cambridge Information Services, Roger Needham Building
7 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0RB, UK
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href