Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:34:58PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> You're wrong.  You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you
> have to jump over the "goto" statement.

The goto is a conditional jump. You propose replacing it with a
conditional jump past the error handling code predicated on the
opposite condition. Where's the improvement?

> > any instructions, and you end up with a kernel which has much more
> > duplicated code and thus thrashes the cache more. It also makes the
> 
> If that argument was taken to it's logical conclusion (and I did, in my
> mind just now), no one should add any code the grows the kernel at all.

Not without good reason.