Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm: remove unnecessary error check

[Bob Peterson]

----- Original Message -----
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >   
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Bob Peterson wrote:
> >>     
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> >>>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	send_args(r, lkb, ms);
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	error = send_message(mh, ms);
> >>>> -	if (error)
> >>>> -		goto fail;
> >>>> -	return 0;
> >>>> +	return send_message(mh, ms);

Hi Guoqing,

Sorry, I was momentarily confused. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
What I meant was: Instead of doing:

+	return send_message(mh, ms);
...where send_message returns 0, it might be better to have:

static void send_message(struct dlm_mhandle *mh, struct dlm_message *ms)
{
	dlm_message_out(ms);
	dlm_lowcomms_commit_buffer(mh);
}

...And in send_common, do (in both places):
+	send_message(mh, ms);
+	return 0;

Since it's so short, it might even be better to code send_message as a macro,
or at least an "inline" function.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/