linux-kernel - Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm: remove unnecessary error check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:39:41 +0800
From:	Guoqing Jiang <gqJiang@...e.com>
To:	Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
CC:	ccaulfie@...hat.com, teigland@...hat.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm: remove unnecessary error check

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@...e.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);
>>  
>>   fail:
>>  	remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
>> @@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>> dlm_lkb *lkb)
>>  
>>  	send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>  
>> -	error = send_message(mh, ms);
>> -	if (error)
>> -		goto fail;
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return send_message(mh, ms);
>>  
>>   fail:
>>  	remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
>> --
>> 1.7.12.4
>>     
>
> Hi,
>
> The patch looks okay, but if remove_from_waiters() always returns 0,
> wouldn't it be better to change the function from int to void and
> return 0 here? The advantage is that code spelunkers wouldn't need
> to back-track one more level (not to mention the instruction or two
> it might save).
>
>   
Seems remove_from_waiters is not always returns 0, the return value
could  be -1 or 0 which depends on _remove_from_waiters.

BTW, I found that there are no big difference between send_common
and send_lookup, since the send_common can also be use to send
lookup message, I guess send_lookup can be removed as well.

Thanks,
Guoqing
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/