Re: [patch 3/3] fs/cramfs/inode.c: remove error variable

[Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>]

Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 31.08.2007 [13:43:18 +0200], Richard Knutsson wrote:
>   
>> Andi Drebes wrote:
>>     
>>> This patch removes a variable from fs/cramfs/inode.c that is just used to 
>>> store
>>> a return value which is immediately read afterwards.
>>>
>>> Tested on an i386 box.
>>> Signed-off-by: Andi Drebes <lists-receive@programmierforen.de>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/fs/cramfs/inode.c b/fs/cramfs/inode.c
>>> index 350680f..42d2cf8 100644
>>> --- a/fs/cramfs/inode.c
>>> +++ b/fs/cramfs/inode.c
>>> @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static int cramfs_readdir(struct file *filp, void 
>>> *dirent, filldir_t filldir)
>>> 		char *name;
>>> 		ino_t ino;
>>> 		mode_t mode;
>>> -		int namelen, error;
>>> +		int namelen;
>>>
>>> 		mutex_lock(&read_mutex);
>>> 		de = cramfs_read(sb, OFFSET(inode) + offset, 
>>> 		sizeof(*de)+CRAMFS_MAXPATHLEN);
>>> @@ -398,8 +398,7 @@ static int cramfs_readdir(struct file *filp, void 
>>> *dirent, filldir_t filldir)
>>> 				break;
>>> 			namelen--;
>>> 		}
>>> -		error = filldir(dirent, buf, namelen, offset, ino, mode >> 
>>> 12);
>>> -		if (error)
>>> +		if(filldir(dirent, buf, namelen, offset, ino, mode >> 12))
>>>  
>>>       
>> Maybe picky but please leave it as "if (".
>>     
>
> Beyond that, I just don't like this change. I thought the preferred way
> for these types of statements was the previous version. That is:
>
> error = filldir(...);
> if (error)
> 	error stuff
>
> Rather than a conditional with potential side-effects?
>   
Which side-effects are you thinking of? We quite often have:
if (!if_this_fails_it_all_fails())
    return -FAILED;

but we also have:
if ((p = malloc(...)) = NULL)
    ...

and that is a different story (IMHO).

But I don't mind either way...
(the compiler will get rid of it anyway, right?)

cu
Richard Knutsson