[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1293095663.7789.3.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:14:23 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: cleanup of cwnd initialization in
tcp_init_metrics()
Le jeudi 23 décembre 2010 à 10:03 +0100, Jiri Kosina a écrit :
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 à 19:39 +0100, Jiri Kosina a écrit :
> > > Commit 86bcebafc5e7f5 ("tcp: fix >2 iw selection") fixed a case when
> > > congestion window initialization has been mistakenly omitted by
> > > introducing cwnd label and putting backwards jump from the end of the
> > > function.
> > >
> > > This makes the code unnecessarily tricky to read and understand on a first
> > > sight.
> > >
> > > Shuffle the code around a little bit to make it more obvious.
> >
> > Well in fine you have
> >
> > if (inet_csk(sk)->icsk_rto < TCP_TIMEOUT_INIT && !tp->rx_opt.saw_tstamp)
> > goto reset;
> > goto out;
> > reset:
> >
> > Is that really more obvious ? ;)
>
> To me it seems much more obvious than goto from the very end of the
> function somewhere into the middle and returning from there, but
> definitely a matter of personal taste.
>
You dont understand what I said. Please read again.
To me I prefer you _finish_ the cleanup so that we have :
if (some condition) {
reset:
}
out:
You remove two "goto" in the process.
Is that clear now ?
--
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