From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA61E7FAF for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 01:27:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FAF8F8037 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 23:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eo9lu1k7ETpwk1Q8 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:27:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:27:16 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't allocate an ioend for direct I/O completions Message-ID: <20150202072716.GA9378@lst.de> References: <1422485661-520-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150130144223.GA27441@laptop.bfoster> <20150201230403.GD4251@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150201230403.GD4251@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:04:03AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > A nit, but I guess you could kill the braces here now too. > > Given it's a multi-line return statement, the braces are fine. FWIW, > when we have a if () { return ...} else { return ... } we normally > kill the else. i.e: > > if (rw & WRITE) { > return foo( > bar, > baz); > } > return .....; > > So I modified it like this. For an if/else that is 100% symmetric like read vs write I prefer to keep the else, otherwise I agree. But in the end it's a very minor point, so it doesn't really matter. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs