Re: [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c

Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:

If you don't like goto, don't read kernel code!

But his patch also cleans up a code quit a bit.

As a wider question, what is the practice for accepting patches without functional changes that simply clean up code and make it look better?

BTW, I also agree that the gotos in this case keep the normal code flow cleaner, while making the exceptions isolated well.

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c
    • From: Telemaque Ndizihiwe <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c
    • From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [ltp] Re: IBM HDAPS Someone interested?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] I-pipe: Core implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Replaces two GOTO statements with one IF_ELSE statement in /fs/open.c
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]