Hello, Christoph.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:14:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> the changes look good to me (although I haven't tested any of your patches
> yet), but the code flow is rather confusing. What do you think about
> the not even compile version of scsi_request_fn() below that should be
> functionally identical to yours:
Yes, it's rather confusing. I was a bit concerned about forward
gotos which are not error handling/exit and possible needs for
unlikely()'s by putting error handling on hotter path, IOW, untaken
forward branch. For the records, I think the likely/unlikely thingies
are ugly & over-optimization in many cases.
However, your code is aesthetically much better. If there are no
opjections regarding the forward non-error-exit jumps, I'll reorganize
the code mostly as you suggested in the next take of this patchset.
Thanks a lot. :-)
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
