From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrc6b-0008Bh-D6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:34:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zrc6a-0004Y5-JI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:34:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:34:07 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20151029013407.GA19696@ad.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1445840693-3177-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <1445840693-3177-4-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <20151028095421.GD3836@noname.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151028095421.GD3836@noname.str.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/9] block: Track discard requests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-block@nongnu.org, Peter Lieven , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Ronnie Sahlberg , Paolo Bonzini On Wed, 10/28 10:54, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > - return 0; > > +out: > > + tracked_request_end(&req); > > + return ret; > > } > > I would prefer an explicit ret = 0 before the out label because > otherwise you're relying on the previous value that has been set > somewhere in the loop. As far as I can tell, it's still correct, but it > makes it needlessly hard to tell whether success is 0 or >= 0. Good point, will fix. Fam