From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760074AbYBCSKl (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:10:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754733AbYBCSKc (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:10:32 -0500 Received: from uhweb15152.united-hoster.com ([85.88.15.152]:56696 "EHLO uhweb15152.united-hoster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753303AbYBCSKc (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:10:32 -0500 From: Frank Seidel To: Rabin Vincent Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded code in sys_getpriority Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:10:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel References: <20080203030429.GB7459@ubuntu> <200802031054.45604.frank@f-seidel.de> <20080203175854.GB3124@ubuntu> (sfid-20080203_190515_304540_24F4CBC029C088AF) In-Reply-To: <20080203175854.GB3124@ubuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802031910.28621.frank@f-seidel.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 03 February 2008 18:58, Rabin Vincent wrote: > Do you mean the PRIO_* cases in the switch? They're still independent > of position after the patch because they don't fall through. Yes, sure, this is fully correct now. Just if somehting whatsoever is put ahead touching retval one need to take care of this here. But as i don't have enough experience to know if this likely at all i'm fully fine with it. Just wanted to note one should think about if its worth the change. Thanks, Frank