lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Remove unneeded 'if' statement in lov_request.c/lov_check_set()
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:59:22PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 21:34 +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
> > It is silly to go through an if statement to set a single boolean
> > value in function of a single boolean expression. In the function
> > lov_check_set, assign the return value directly.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> []
> > @@ -140,14 +140,13 @@ void lov_set_add_req(struct lov_request *req, struct lov_request_set *set)
> >
> > static int lov_check_set(struct lov_obd *lov, int idx)
> > {
> > - int rc = 0;
> > + int rc;
> > mutex_lock(&lov->lov_lock);
> >
> > - if (lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> > - lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> > - (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> > - class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried))
> > - rc = 1;
> > + rc = lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> > + lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> > + (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> > + class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&lov->lov_lock);
> > return rc;
>
> Maybe consider using a temporary for lov->lov_tgtx[idx] like:
[...]

Indeed, it is nicer this way.

Thanks,
Riccardo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-20 13:41    [W:0.084 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site