linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] udf: replace loops coded with goto to real loops

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:10:01 +0100
From:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Fennema <bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] udf: replace loops coded with goto to real loops

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:48:21PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 06-01-08 02:21:50, marcin.slusarz@...il.com wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
>   I'm not sure if this improves readability in general. If the code is
> really a loop in nature, then we should code it using do {} while but in
> case we loop back just in case of some error (as seems to be the case in
> udf_bitmap_new_block()), then IMHO goto is more explanative. So at least
> that one case I'd leave as is.
Why do you think it's an error?

Marcin
--
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/