Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] add a flag for per-operation O_DSYNC semantics | From | Anton Altaparmakov <> | Date | Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:22:48 +0200 |
| |
Hi Jeff,
> On 7 Nov 2014, at 01:46, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote: > > Milosz Tanski <milosz@adfin.com> writes: > >> - if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK)) >> - return -EAGAIN; >> + if (type == READ) { >> + if (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK) >> + return -EAGAIN; >> + } else { >> + if (flags & RWF_DSYNC) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } > > Minor nit, but I'd rather read something that looks like this: > > if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK)) > return -EAGAIN; > else if (type == WRITE && (flags & RWF_DSYNC)) > return -EINVAL;
But your version is less logically efficient for the case where "type == READ" is true and "flags & RWF_NONBLOCK" is false because your version then has to do the "if (type == WRITE" check before discovering it does not need to take that branch either, whilst the original version does not have to do such a test at all.
Best regards,
Anton
> I won't lose sleep over it, though. > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
-- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) University of Cambridge Information Services, Roger Needham Building 7 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0RB, UK
| |