On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 02:26, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, John W. Linville wrote: > >> Well, you weren't interested in making the minor change suggested >> by Julian. So I set it aside with the intent of making the change >> myself, then neglected to follow through. :-( I'll try to get to >> that today. Or, feel free to submit a new version yourself. > > I didn't neglect, I explained, why I considered his suggestion not > necessarily an improvement. If there were several votes for that change, > or if it were a maintainer, who requested the change - I would consider > obeying, but this time it was just an opinion of one developer against > that of another. I was going to respond by explaining that taking a mutex is an expensive operation, adding a label is cheap, both in terms of code complexity and code run-time. I personally see no change in code complexity by adding a label to this function. What does concern me is when actions are performed that perform work for no real benefit - IMHO this increases the code complexity: when reading it, one will ask one's self "why?" and then have to search for why someone has done something un-obvious like this. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
