James, On 4/22/17 03:42, James Bottomley wrote: > Really, no, you're making the code less clear for no gain. I'm fairly > certain the compiler can optimise this without any help and when you're > skimming the code you can easily see that the out jump is taken if you > have a sense code that's either invalid or deferred. After your change > you have to glance one level deeper to come to the same conclusion. > > To be clear: I wouldn't object if the original function were written > the way you propose because we all get used to scanning code looking > for things like this. However, a patch to change existing code fails > the net benefit test.
OK. Let's drop this patch then. Thank you for the review. -- Damien Le Moal, Western Digital
