Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:26:01 -0400 (EDT) | From | Bob Peterson <> | Subject | Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm: remove unnecessary error check |
| |
----- 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 <gqjiang@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
| |