On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 16:40 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > 2010/2/15 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 20:06 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > >> 2010/2/11 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > >> > > >> > It should be possible to restructure the code such that the late_failure > >> > label and goto aren't necessary. > >> > >> You cannot assume the prepare access to succeed the 2nd time, although > >> it will in 99.99% of the time. > > > > No such assumption is necessary: > > > > * Call ExaDoPrepareAccess(). > > * On success, do the new thing, call ExaDoPrepareAccess() again. > > * Take the current failure path if either ExaDoPrepareAccess() > > call failed. > > But that will mean you need a goto, a for loop (in the beginning), > code duplication or something else. I just took the goto as least > invasive.
A local boolean variable to store the ExaDoPrepareAccess() return value should do just fine. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
