Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] add a flag for per-operation O_DSYNC semantics

[Anton Altaparmakov]

Hi Jeff,

> On 7 Nov 2014, at 01:46, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/