Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: lclient: Removed the else statement

[Jaime Arrocha <jarr@innercoder.com>]

On 09/17/2015 11:14 AM, Anjali Menon wrote:
> Removed the else statement along with some unwanted brackets
> to fix the following coding style warning detected by
> checkpatch.
>
> WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
>
> Signed-off-by: Anjali Menon <cse.anjalimenon@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c | 16 +++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> index ab6cb41..23092fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> @@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ int ccc_prep_size(const struct lu_env *env, struct cl_object *obj,
>   					*exceed = 1;
>   			}
>   			return result;
> -		} else {
> +		}
>   			/*
>   			 * region is within kms and, hence, within real file
>   			 * size (A). We need to increase i_size to cover the
> @@ -847,14 +847,12 @@ int ccc_prep_size(const struct lu_env *env, struct cl_object *obj,
>   			 * which will always be >= the kms value here.
>   			 * b=11081
>   			 */
> -			if (cl_isize_read(inode) < kms) {
> -				cl_isize_write_nolock(inode, kms);
> -				CDEBUG(D_VFSTRACE,
> -				       DFID" updating i_size %llu\n",
> -				       PFID(lu_object_fid(&obj->co_lu)),
> -				       (__u64)cl_isize_read(inode));
> -
> -			}
> +		if (cl_isize_read(inode) < kms) {
> +			cl_isize_write_nolock(inode, kms);
> +			CDEBUG(D_VFSTRACE,
> +				DFID" updating i_size %llu\n",
> +				PFID(lu_object_fid(&obj->co_lu)),
> +				(__u64)cl_isize_read(inode));
>   		}
>   	}
>   	ccc_object_size_unlock(obj);
I think the "else"  bracket is needed for when the statement "pos > kms" 
is not true, but it might work since there's only two choices tested. 
The checkpatch.pl error can bring notices like that, what's important is 
the context of the code.
It might be there to increase readability since it is kind of an obvious 
situation.
That's just my analysis.

-JA