Re: isofs: One check less in isofs_read_inode() after error detection

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I agree that
> 
> fail:
>         goto out;
> 
> in the original code is awkward and we can get rid of it.

How would you like to change this place instead?


> However renaming labels is IMO pointless and
> 
>>  	if (bh)
>> +release_bh:
>>  		brelse(bh);
>>  	return ret;
> 
> is just disgusting.

I know that it can be occasionally harder to achieve the desired consensus.

Regards,
Markus