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:0.171 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site