From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752094AbbFKCls (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:41:48 -0400 Received: from smtp2.provo.novell.com ([137.65.250.81]:48848 "EHLO smtp2.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751567AbbFKCll (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:41:41 -0400 Message-ID: <5578F4D4.2080308@suse.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:39:16 +0800 From: Guoqing Jiang User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Peterson CC: ccaulfie@redhat.com, teigland@redhat.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm: remove unnecessary error check References: <1433843172-8953-1-git-send-email-gqjiang@suse.com> <1545280635.13245793.1433851749238.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5577A36D.5010908@suse.com> <70321158.13952725.1433904643714.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5577AAB4.20700@suse.com> <510231821.14079509.1433939161255.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <510231821.14079509.1433939161255.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bob Peterson wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++-------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c >>>>>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c >>>>>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct >>>>>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype) >>>>>> >>>>>> send_args(r, lkb, ms); >>>>>> >>>>>> - error = send_message(mh, ms); >>>>>> - if (error) >>>>>> - goto fail; >>>>>> - return 0; >>>>>> + return send_message(mh, ms); >>>>>> > > Hi Guoqing, > > Sorry, I was momentarily confused. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. > What I meant was: Instead of doing: > > + return send_message(mh, ms); > ...where send_message returns 0, it might be better to have: > > static void send_message(struct dlm_mhandle *mh, struct dlm_message *ms) > { > dlm_message_out(ms); > dlm_lowcomms_commit_buffer(mh); > } > > ...And in send_common, do (in both places): > + send_message(mh, ms); > + return 0; > > Since it's so short, it might even be better to code send_message as a macro, > or at least an "inline" function. > > Hi Bob, Got it, thanks. It is a better solution but it is not a bug fix or similar thing, so maybe just leave it as it is. Regards, Guoqing