From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:22:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] [RFC] request_region() error handling fixes Message-Id: <20060927212209.GK7457@us.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <1159387194.1709.40.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1159387194.1709.40.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On 27.09.2006 [14:04:25 -0700], Badari Pulavarty wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 13:48 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > On 27.09.2006 [12:59:54 -0700], Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I started working on request_region() error handling fixes. > > > Before I got too far, want to make sure its following approach > > > is acceptable. (not happy with too many "goto" statements). > > > Is there a better way to do this ? > > > > I don't think there is any better way to do multiple stacked failures > > than many gotos. At least, if the goal is to avoid code duplication > > (which I would say it is). > > Okay. Do you think I should add unlikely() for these to get better > code ? iirc, the LKML consensus on unlikely() was only add it if it truly is very unlikely and actually makes a significant difference. Most of what you're patching is init code, which will only be run once, it seems. I don't think unlikely() is necessary (unless you can show a significant performance difference, I guess). Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors