----- Original Message -----
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Bob Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <gqji...@suse.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 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.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
