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.
>
>
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
--
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/
