From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 10576027713536 X-Google-Groups: outreachy-kernel X-Google-Thread: 9ca63f596c,8137d625aae364a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid9ca63f596c,domainid0,private,googlegroup X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Received: by 10.112.118.162 with SMTP id kn2mr1715500lbb.22.1427998251250; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.104.227 with SMTP id gh3ls1380093wib.19.canary; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.91.76 with SMTP id cc12mr3460361wib.7.1427998250824; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g5si257282wix.1.2015.04.02.11.10.50 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mahfouz.saif.elyazal@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::234; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mahfouz.saif.elyazal@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mahfouz.saif.elyazal@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-wi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id gn9so114809255wib.1 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NCUvMNoYgzJ3AH8nLaMDArpIx6FXvnn6ANoZxK3SGrg=; b=Gv5P+8P9MIkFnRfwWPNaOhB4faHFgOlhM9weyz/wmSyOsvBJ0/zo2Qt4Fm9Ah0i92M 5+aZ9lG1YG+xnaaLbXoN2frjG2klR14G4XREZU5wP6WIahZ+yuhqqZe/7C5JYBs8cM0t D+l6lBeVcZrjtrsdLN+M06iV1+pdbsBFw56SNzrN5Nw4ALsKSZQ4SBMFSMxvZWXLeCRQ 3yGfN0tNNTf5Ije637Uog7rV4o043OOpEir/Otw2uwfcH0kG5D38AzpgGjPihawbGIO+ lzU9jwGF2MCeBDQkotv3Skr22WA9u0Q/NdMf2Ra7OaWjApqjqgOKzSefvok1K/Jc5H8K iZTw== X-Received: by 10.180.82.9 with SMTP id e9mr26772172wiy.88.1427998250746; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from localhost.localdomain ([41.130.237.208]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hj10sm8246621wjc.48.2015.04.02.11.10.43 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:09:56 +0200 From: Aya Mahfouz To: Greg KH Cc: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: lustre: include: replace OBD_CHECK_DEV by obd_check_dev Message-ID: <20150402180955.GA10269@waves> References: <707aaaafd992944368f0b046b0e030bf68882fc1.1427987408.git.mahfouz.saif.elyazal@gmail.com> <20150402164926.GA32106@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150402164926.GA32106@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 06:49:26PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:18:10PM +0200, Aya Mahfouz wrote: > > Static inline functions are preferred over macros. Hence, the function > > obd_check_dev was introduced. obd_check_dev replaces the macro > > OBD_CHECK_DEV. All functions that call obd_check_dev store the return > > values and return them if they represent an error code. > > > > Some of the changes were carried out manually and others were > > done using coccinelle. > > > > Signed-off-by: Aya Mahfouz > > --- > > v2: removed unneeded parenthesis around the variable obd. > > v3: v2 was sent as v1. Fixed that mistake. > > > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h > > index 5314f6f..76f55d3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h > > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/obd_class.h > > @@ -341,6 +341,15 @@ do { \ > > } \ > > } while (0) > > > > +static inline int obd_check_dev(struct obd_device *obd) > > +{ > > + if (!obd) { > > + CERROR("NULL device\n"); > > + return -ENODEV; > > + } > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > /* ensure obd_setup and !obd_stopping */ > > #define OBD_CHECK_DEV_ACTIVE(obd) \ > > do { \ > > @@ -594,7 +603,9 @@ static inline int obd_precleanup(struct obd_device *obd, > > int rc; > > DECLARE_LU_VARS(ldt, d); > > > > - OBD_CHECK_DEV(obd); > > + rc = obd_check_dev(obd); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; > > ldt = obd->obd_type->typ_lu; > > d = obd->obd_lu_dev; > > if (ldt != NULL && d != NULL) { > > @@ -620,7 +631,9 @@ static inline int obd_cleanup(struct obd_device *obd) > > int rc; > > DECLARE_LU_VARS(ldt, d); > > > > - OBD_CHECK_DEV(obd); > > + rc = obd_check_dev(obd); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; > > > > ldt = obd->obd_type->typ_lu; > > d = obd->obd_lu_dev; > > @@ -668,7 +681,9 @@ obd_process_config(struct obd_device *obd, int datalen, void *data) > > int rc; > > DECLARE_LU_VARS(ldt, d); > > > > - OBD_CHECK_DEV(obd); > > + rc = obd_check_dev(obd); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; > > > > obd->obd_process_conf = 1; > > ldt = obd->obd_type->typ_lu; > > @@ -1280,7 +1295,9 @@ static inline int obd_notify(struct obd_device *obd, > > { > > int rc; > > > > - OBD_CHECK_DEV(obd); > > + rc = obd_check_dev(obd); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; > > > > /* the check for async_recov is a complete hack - I'm hereby > > overloading the meaning to also mean "this was called from > > @@ -1381,7 +1398,11 @@ static inline int obd_health_check(const struct lu_env *env, > > static inline int obd_register_observer(struct obd_device *obd, > > struct obd_device *observer) > > { > > - OBD_CHECK_DEV(obd); > > + int rc; > > + > > + rc = obd_check_dev(obd); > > + if (rc) > > + return rc; > > down_write(&obd->obd_observer_link_sem); > > if (obd->obd_observer && observer) { > > up_write(&obd->obd_observer_link_sem); > > @@ -1389,7 +1410,7 @@ static inline int obd_register_observer(struct obd_device *obd, > > } > > obd->obd_observer = observer; > > up_write(&obd->obd_observer_link_sem); > > - return 0; > > + return rc; > > Again, as I stated before, this change is not needed. > > sorry, > No, problem. Done in the fourth version. > greg k-h -- Kind Regards, Aya Saif El-yazal Mahfouz