[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402108770.25112.5.camel@joe-AO725>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:39:30 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Pranith Kumar <pranith@...ech.edu>, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
davidlohr@...com, mingo@...hat.com, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] cleanup: use bool as return type for
rwsem_is_locked
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 21:41 -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 08:59 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> > On 06/06/2014 08:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> If you are going to change the return type to bool, then you should
> >> also remove the manual "!!" conversions to a boolean return and let
> >> the compiler do it in the most optimal way.
> > Agreed, please find patch below:
> Simplify the "!!" condition. This is much simpler. :)
[]
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -285,25 +285,25 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
> }
>
> #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> -int
> +bool
> xfs_isilocked(
> xfs_inode_t *ip,
> uint lock_flags)
> {
> if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
> - return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
> + return (ip->i_lock.mr_writer != 0);
simpler still would be just removing the !! completely.
I presume in no case would it make an actual difference
in emitted code.
ie:
return ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists