On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 04:35:20PM -0800, John Johansen wrote: > Do you really think, this 1 little condition tucked away is that much more > maintenance? The way it is set up, it is completely transparent to the > rest of the code. That is we can delete it and the rest of the code doesn't > need to change.
Well, if you feel strongly enough that we should keep it, how about adding a comment near work_sync_one() that it shouldn't be used directly? work_sync() knows how to avoid the case I'm worried about. > > I think we ought to avoid C++ exceptions entirely. > > > I'm not so convinced, especially since we are already using C++ exceptions > else where, but I'll stick with what we have for now Oh. That does make it less clear. > hrmm I think I would prefer a > if (jobs_max < 1) > error .... Good idea. Thanks
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
