Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded code in sys_getpriority

2008-02-03 Thread Frank Seidel
On Sunday 03 February 2008 18:58, Rabin Vincent wrote: > Do you mean the PRIO_* cases in the switch? They're still independent > of position after the patch because they don't fall through. Yes, sure, this is fully correct now. Just if somehting whatsoever is put ahead touching retval one need to

Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded code in sys_getpriority

2008-02-03 Thread Rabin Vincent
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:54:45AM +0100, Frank Seidel wrote: > On Sunday 03 February 2008 04:04, Rabin Vincent wrote: > > This check is not required because the condition is always true. > > ... > > - if (niceval > retval) > > - retval =

Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded code in sys_getpriority

2008-02-03 Thread Frank Seidel
On Sunday 03 February 2008 04:04, Rabin Vincent wrote: > This check is not required because the condition is always true. > ... > - if (niceval > retval) > - retval = niceval; > + retval = 20 - task_nice(p);