lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
Date
Am Sonntag, 12. Januar 2003 22:44 schrieb 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?

Yes. Typical error cleanup looks like:
err_out:
up(&sem);
return err;

Releasing a lock in another function is a crime punished by slow death.
(Some might even resort to voodoo to make sure your shadow suffers
in the beyond.)
It makes code absolutely unreadable.

Regards
Oliver

-
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:0.125 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site