From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752239AbaGTM1k (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:27:40 -0400
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:34844 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751418AbaGTM1j (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:27:39 -0400
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:27:34 +0200
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()
Message-ID: <20140720122734.GA13639@rlp>
References: <1405798498-15754-1-git-send-email-riccardo.lucchese@gmail.com>
 <1405798498-15754-2-git-send-email-riccardo.lucchese@gmail.com>
 <20140720045253.GK25880@mwanda>
 <20140720110836.GC12613@rlp>
 <20140720113747.GG18338@mwanda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140720113747.GG18338@mwanda>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 02:37:47PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
> > 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:
[...]
> > > 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);
> 
> Sure, I suppose.  Using "desc" is a clean up.  Otherwise the original
> code was not "silly".  It was fine.

The adjective "silly" was inappropriate and misleading, sorry about
that.

> I'm curious why you think if statements are less readable than other
> statements.  That seems like nonsense.

Not in general but, in this case, I find the patched code clearer.

Thanks,
riccardo