On 22/01/2008, Anton Salikhmetov <salikhmetov@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> 2008/1/22, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>:
> > On 22/01/2008, Anton Salikhmetov <salikhmetov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2008/1/22, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>:
> > > > Some very pedantic nitpicking below;
> > > >
> > > > On 22/01/2008, Anton Salikhmetov <salikhmetov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > +               if (file && (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
> > > > > +                       if (flags & MS_ASYNC)
> > > > > +                               vma_wrprotect(vma);
> > > > > +                       if (flags & MS_SYNC) {
> > > >
> > > > "else if" ??
> > >
> > > The MS_ASYNC and MS_SYNC flags are mutually exclusive, that is why I
> > > did not use the "else-if" here. Moreover, this function itself checks
> > > that they never come together.
> > >
> >
> > I would say that them being mutually exclusive would be a reason *for*
> > using "else-if" here.
>
> This check is performed by the sys_msync() function itself in its very
> beginning.
>
> We don't need to check it later.
>

Sure, it's just that, to me, using 'else-if' makes it explicit that
the two are mutually exclusive. Using "if (...), if (...)" doesn't.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that 'else-if' here better shows the
intention...  No big deal.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/