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

    <quote who="Rob Wilkens">
    > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:40, Rik van Riel wrote:
    >> OK, now imagine the dcache locking changing a little bit.
    >> You need to update this piece of (duplicated) code in half
    >> a dozen places in just this function and no doubt in dozens
    >> of other places all over fs/*.c.
    >>
    >> >From a maintenance point of view, a goto to a single block
    >> of error handling code is easier to maintain.
    >>
    >
    > There's no reason, though, that the error handling/cleanup code can't be in an
    > entirely separate function, and if speed is needed, there's no reason it can't be an
    > "inline" function. Or am I oversimplifying things again?
    >
    > -Rob
    >

    you do, if you inline the code and every drive writer use this tecnique the kernel will
    be much bigger don't you think ?!?

    Makeing a simple function instead is quite slower I think... don't forget that goto are
    used only in error recovery routines ...

    You can simply build a "stack" of labels .. IMHO this is a great way to be sure of the
    right order we are performing cleanup/recovery ...
    --
    Emiliano Gabrielli

    dip. di Fisica
    2° Università di Roma "Tor Vergata"


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:4.137 / U:0.708 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site