Re: isofs: One check less in isofs_read_inode() after error detection

From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Mon Aug 21 2017 - 10:18:42 EST


> 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