From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628F4C10DCE for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD6C20674 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727466AbgCRJkj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 05:40:39 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35889 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726994AbgCRJkj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 05:40:39 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id B422168C65; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:40:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:40:37 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] xfs: refactor xlog_state_clean_iclog Message-ID: <20200318094037.GC6538@lst.de> References: <20200316144233.900390-1-hch@lst.de> <20200316144233.900390-7-hch@lst.de> <20200317132505.GG24078@bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200317132505.GG24078@bfoster> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:25:05AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The code looks mostly fine, but I'm not a fan of this factoring where we > deref ->l_covered_state here and return a value only for the caller to > assign it to ->l_covered_state again. Can we just let this function > assign ->l_covered_state itself (i.e. assign a local variable rather than > return within the switch)? I did that earlier, but this version looked easier to understand to me. I can change it if there is a strong preference.