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