On Monday 28 April 2008, Neil Brown wrote:
> This is not good, you are subtly changing semantics.
> You have changed:
>
> if (A)
> X;
> else if (B)
> Y;
> else if (C)
> Z;
> else
> W;
>
> to
> if (A && foo())
> X;
> else if (B && foo())
> Y;
> else if (C && foo())
> Z;
> else
> W;
>
> If 'A' and not 'foo()', you want nothing to happen, but you will
> actually get one of Y, Z, or W happening, all of which are wrong.
Ouch, right. I shouldn't write patches in the middle of the night...
>
> > Btw, from my point of view the
> >
> > if (printk_ratelimit())
> > printk("print output");
> >
> > looks odd. I just don't see why the API isn't
> >
> > printk_ratelimit("print output");
>
> Very sensible. I've put
>
> #define printk_rl printk_ratelimit() ?: printk
>
> at the start of raid5.c, and used it to fix the problematic printks.
Great!
Thanks a lot,
Bernd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
