[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061101202400.GA6888@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:24:00 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To: Holden Karau <holden@...scanfly.ca>
Cc: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Holden Karau <holdenk@...dros.com>,
"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised again
On Wed, 1 November 2006 13:02:12 -0500, Holden Karau wrote:
> On 11/1/06, Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de> wrote:
> >
> >Result would be something like:
> > c_bh = kmalloc(...
> > err = -ENOMEM;
> > if (!c_bh)
> > goto error;
> That wouldn't work so well since we always return err,
I don't quite follow. If the branch is taken, err is -ENOMEM. If the
branch is not taken, err is set to 0 with the next instruction.
Both methods definitely work. Whether one is preferrable over the
other is imo 90% taste and maybe 10% better code on some architecture.
So just pick what you prefer.
Jörn
--
Unless something dramatically changes, by 2015 we'll be largely
wondering what all the fuss surrounding Linux was really about.
-- Rob Enderle
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists