Hello, Christoph. On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:14:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > the changes look good to me (although I haven't tested any of your patches > yet), but the code flow is rather confusing. What do you think about > the not even compile version of scsi_request_fn() below that should be > functionally identical to yours:
Yes, it's rather confusing. I was a bit concerned about forward gotos which are not error handling/exit and possible needs for unlikely()'s by putting error handling on hotter path, IOW, untaken forward branch. For the records, I think the likely/unlikely thingies are ugly & over-optimization in many cases. However, your code is aesthetically much better. If there are no opjections regarding the forward non-error-exit jumps, I'll reorganize the code mostly as you suggested in the next take of this patchset. Thanks a lot. :-) -- tejun - 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/
