Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: isofs: One check less in isofs_read_inode() after error detection | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:18:14 +0200 |
| |
> I agree that > > fail: > goto out; > > in the original code is awkward and we can get rid of it.
How would you like to change this place instead?
> However renaming labels is IMO pointless and > >> if (bh) >> +release_bh: >> brelse(bh); >> return ret; > > is just disgusting.
I know that it can be occasionally harder to achieve the desired consensus.
Regards, Markus
| |