[PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[Daeseok Youn]

Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.

Signed-off-by: Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com>
---
 fs/ocfs2/dir.c |   12 ++++++------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
index b08050b..1478a50 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dir.c
@@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ int __ocfs2_add_entry(handle_t *handle,
 	struct ocfs2_dir_entry *de, *de1;
 	struct ocfs2_dinode *di = (struct ocfs2_dinode *)parent_fe_bh->b_data;
 	struct super_block *sb = dir->i_sb;
-	int retval, status;
+	int retval;
 	unsigned int size = sb->s_blocksize;
 	struct buffer_head *insert_bh = lookup->dl_leaf_bh;
 	char *data_start = insert_bh->b_data;
@@ -1695,22 +1695,22 @@ int __ocfs2_add_entry(handle_t *handle,
 			}
 
 			if (insert_bh == parent_fe_bh)
-				status = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle,
+				retval = ocfs2_journal_access_di(handle,
 								 INODE_CACHE(dir),
 								 insert_bh,
 								 OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
 			else {
-				status = ocfs2_journal_access_db(handle,
+				retval = ocfs2_journal_access_db(handle,
 								 INODE_CACHE(dir),
 								 insert_bh,
 					      OCFS2_JOURNAL_ACCESS_WRITE);
 
 				if (ocfs2_dir_indexed(dir)) {
-					status = ocfs2_dx_dir_insert(dir,
+					retval = ocfs2_dx_dir_insert(dir,
 								handle,
 								lookup);
-					if (status) {
-						mlog_errno(status);
+					if (retval) {
+						mlog_errno(retval);
 						goto bail;
 					}
 				}
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:38:10 +0900 Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.
> 

The patch does a lot more than this.  It causes __ocfs2_add_entry to
propagate error codes which were previously dropped on the floor.

Please update the changelog to fully explain the functional changes and
to explain why they are desirable.

After the patch there is still one unchecked call to
ocfs2_journal_access_di() and one unchecked call to
ocfs2_journal_access_db().  Probably these are bugs.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[DaeSeok Youn]

Hi,

I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
after update changelog?

Thanks.

Regards,
Daeseok Youn

2015-02-27 6:33 GMT+09:00 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:38:10 +0900 Daeseok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Use 'retval' instead of 'status'.
>>
>
> The patch does a lot more than this.  It causes __ocfs2_add_entry to
> propagate error codes which were previously dropped on the floor.
>
> Please update the changelog to fully explain the functional changes and
> to explain why they are desirable.
>
> After the patch there is still one unchecked call to
> ocfs2_journal_access_di() and one unchecked call to
> ocfs2_journal_access_db().  Probably these are bugs.
>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[Richard Weinberger]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
> after update changelog?

One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[DaeSeok Youn]

Hi,

2015-02-27 18:41 GMT+09:00 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
>> after update changelog?
>
> One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?

I couldn't test, actually I don't have the environment for testing
this file system.
just looking this file for cleaning up and found this.

Thanks.

Daeseok Youn.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> //richard

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: remove unneeded variable 'status'

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 27.02.2015 um 11:29 schrieb DaeSeok Youn:
> Hi,
> 
> 2015-02-27 18:41 GMT+09:00 Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, DaeSeok Youn <daeseok.youn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this patch was already queued. Can I send this patch again
>>> after update changelog?
>>
>> One thing that is much more important, how did you test this patch? Did you?
> 
> I couldn't test, actually I don't have the environment for testing
> this file system.
> just looking this file for cleaning up and found this.

*please* setup a test environment and test the code paths you're changing.

Thanks,
//richard