| > previous code had the form (this is copied from 2.6.17-mm1 original):
| >
| >size = 0;
| >sk_for_each(sk2, node, list)
| >if (++size >= best_size_so_far)
| >goto next;
| >
From: Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:08:08 +
> However, I would also like to plead non-guilty. I have checked - what you
> are quoting is not the original patch. If you look at e.g. 2.6.17-mm1, the
> previous code had the form (this is copied from 2.6.17-mm1 origin
Gerrit Renker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>size = 0;
>sk_for_each(sk2, node, list)
>if (++size >= best_size_so_far)
>goto next;
>best_size_so_far = size;
Hi Dave,
first of all - I take my hat off to such astuteness in the light of a mailing
list with an average of 100 postings per day and a massive throughput of patch
submissions. It is clearly awesome to be able to relate individual changes
in light of such a massive flood of patches.
However, I
On 12/22/06, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because of massively painful regressions like the following,
I absolutely refuse to apply "cleanup" patches to remove gotos
for "clarity". All such patches do is change the code and
potentially add bugs, they don't help in any way at all.
Ge
Because of massively painful regressions like the following,
I absolutely refuse to apply "cleanup" patches to remove gotos
for "clarity". All such patches do is change the code and
potentially add bugs, they don't help in any way at all.
Gerrit, please be more careful next time, and resist the
