[PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: osc: Modify right hand side of an assignment

[PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: osc: Modify right hand side of an assignment

[Janani Ravichandran]

This patch modifies an assignment of the form a = (a <op> b);
as: a <op>= b; where <op> is << or >>.
Coccinelle script used:

@@
identifier i;
expression e;
@@

- i = (i >> e);
+ i >>= e;

@@
identifier i;
expression e;
@@

- i = (i << e);
+ i <<= e;

Signed-off-by: Janani Ravichandran <janani.rvchndrn@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c
index 3ae00fc..cebc974 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c
@@ -3326,7 +3326,7 @@ static int __init osc_init(void)
 
 	reqsize = 1;
 	while (reqsize < OST_MAXREQSIZE)
-		reqsize = reqsize << 1;
+		reqsize <<= 1;
 
 	/*
 	 * We don't enlarge the request count in OSC pool according to
-- 
2.5.0

Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: osc: Modify right hand side of an assignment

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:40:15AM -0500, Janani Ravichandran wrote:
> This patch modifies an assignment of the form a = (a <op> b);
> as: a <op>= b; where <op> is << or >>.
> Coccinelle script used:
> 
> @@
> identifier i;
> expression e;
> @@
> 
> - i = (i >> e);
> + i >>= e;
> 
> @@
> identifier i;
> expression e;
> @@
> 
> - i = (i << e);
> + i <<= e;
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janani Ravichandran <janani.rvchndrn@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

The subject line is very "odd", it doesn't say what you are doing.
Well, it does, but it doesn't make much sense.

I understand the changes here, but why are you making them?  They aren't
"fixing" anything, nor making the code "simpler" or "cleaner" or
anything else.  We don't have any coding style rules that forces someone
to write this type of expression only one way, and I don't want to start
doing that either.  So I really don't want to accept patches like this.

Yes, I know I already did, sorry, I'll stop that now.  There has to be
lots of other "real" types of fixes / cleanups that you can do instead,
this code needs a lot of work :)

thanks,

greg k-h