[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

I'm REALLY opposed to the use of the word "goto" in any code where it's
not needed. OF course, I'm a linux kernel newbie, so I'm in no position
to comment

Let me comment below the relevant code snippet below as to how I would
change it:

On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:15, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> if (spin_trylock(&tty_lock.lock))
> goto got_lock;
> if (tsk == tty_lock.lock_owner) {
> WARN_ON(!tty_lock.lock_count);
> tty_lock.lock_count++;
> return flags;
> }
> spin_lock(&tty_lock.lock);
> got_lock:
> WARN_ON(tty_lock.lock_owner);

I would change it to something like the following (without testing the
code through a compiler or anything to see if it's valid):

if (!(spin_trylock(&tty_lock.lock))){
if (tsk ==tty_lock.lock_owner){
return flags;

Am I wrong that the above would do the same thing without generating the
sphagetti code that a goto would give you. Gotos are BAD, very very
bad. Please note also that the two if statements above could probably
even be combined further into one statement by using a short circuit &&
in the if.

If I'm misinterpreting the original code, then forgive me.. I just saw
a goto and gasped. There's always a better option than goto.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.281 / U:1.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site