From: Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@gmail.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, oleg.drokin@intel.com,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Remove unneeded 'if' statement in lov_request.c/lov_check_set()
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:08:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140720110836.GC12613@rlp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140720045253.GK25880@mwanda>
Dan,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 07:52:53AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:34:56PM +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
> > It is silly to go through an if statement to set a single boolean
> > value in function of a single boolean expression. In the function
> > lov_check_set, assign the return value directly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c | 11 +++++------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > index ce830e4..90fc66a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > @@ -140,14 +140,13 @@ void lov_set_add_req(struct lov_request *req, struct lov_request_set *set)
> >
> > static int lov_check_set(struct lov_obd *lov, int idx)
> > {
> > - int rc = 0;
> > + int rc;
> > mutex_lock(&lov->lov_lock);
> >
> > - if (lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> > - lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> > - (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> > - class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried))
> > - rc = 1;
> > + rc = lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> > + lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> > + (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> > + class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
>
> I don't see how this makes the code more readable at all.
Thank you for the comment. Would you consider something like the
following diff instead ? Otherwise, I will resend the series for
review without this change.
riccardo
---
diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
index ce830e4..ae670bb 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
@@ -140,14 +140,14 @@ void lov_set_add_req(struct lov_request *req, struct lov_request_set *set)
static int lov_check_set(struct lov_obd *lov, int idx)
{
- int rc = 0;
+ int rc;
+ struct lov_tgt_desc *desc;
mutex_lock(&lov->lov_lock);
- if (lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
- lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
- (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
- class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried))
- rc = 1;
+ desc = lov->lov_tgts[idx];
+ rc = !desc || desc->ltd_active ||
+ (desc->ltd_exp &&
+ class_exp2cliimp(desc->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
mutex_unlock(&lov->lov_lock);
return rc;
--
1.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-20 11:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-19 19:34 staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Cleanup style issues in lov_request.c Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-19 19:34 ` [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Remove unneeded 'if' statement in lov_request.c/lov_check_set() Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-19 19:59 ` Joe Perches
2014-07-20 11:03 ` Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 4:52 ` Dan Carpenter
2014-07-20 11:08 ` Riccardo Lucchese [this message]
2014-07-20 11:37 ` Dan Carpenter
2014-07-20 12:27 ` Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 13:22 ` staging: lustre: lov: Cleanup style issues in lov_request.c Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 13:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] staging: lustre: lov: Cleanup lov_check_set() " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 15:30 ` Joe Perches
2014-07-20 16:01 ` Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-21 10:15 ` staging: lustre: lov: Cleanup style issues " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-21 10:15 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: lustre: lov: Cleanup lov_check_set() " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-21 10:15 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] staging: lustre: lov: Add a blank line after declarations " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-21 10:19 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] staging: lustre: lov: Add a space before open braces '{' " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 13:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] staging: lustre: lov: Add a blank line after declarations " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-20 13:22 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] staging: lustre: lov: Add a space before open braces '{' " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-19 19:34 ` [PATCH 2/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Add a blank line after declarations " Riccardo Lucchese
2014-07-19 19:41 ` [PATCH 3/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Add a space before open braces '{' " Riccardo Lucchese
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140720110836.GC12613@rlp \
--to=riccardo.lucchese@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox