On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:13:41PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infr...> wrote:
> > would do the same.
> But is much less obvious. The LOOKUP_FOLLOW flag is the primary reason for
> this statement. The rest are subordinate and would be wholly irrelevant if
> LOOKUP_FOLLOW was to be removed from the list.
Then keep the LOOKUP_FOLLOW semi-separate as in the original code.
But there's absolutely no reason for the goto spaghetti.