Hi Jeff,

On 7 Nov 2014, at 01:46, Jeff Moyer [off-list ref] wrote:

Milosz Tanski [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

-		if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK))
-			return -EAGAIN;
+		if (type == READ) {
+			if (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK)
+				return -EAGAIN;
+		} else {
+			if (flags & RWF_DSYNC)
+				return -EINVAL;
+		}

Minor nit, but I'd rather read something that looks like this:

	if (type == READ && (flags & RWF_NONBLOCK))
		return -EAGAIN;
	else if (type == WRITE && (flags & RWF_DSYNC))
		return -EINVAL;

But your version is less logically efficient for the case where "type == READ" is true and "flags & RWF_NONBLOCK" is false because your version then has to do the "if (type == WRITE" check before discovering it does not need to take that branch either, whilst the original version does not have to do such a test at all.

Best regards,

	Anton

I won't lose sleep over it, though.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <redacted>

-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
University of Cambridge Information Services, Roger Needham Building
7 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0RB, UK