linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Remove unneeded 'if' statement in lov_request.c/lov_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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1405799962.14358.114.camel@joe-AO725>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:59:22 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@...il.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, oleg.drokin@...el.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre/lustre/lov: Remove unneeded 'if'
 statement in lov_request.c/lov_check_set()

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:

---

 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c | 14 ++++++++------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
index ce830e4..53a4575 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
@@ -140,16 +140,18 @@ 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;
+	struct lmv_tgt_desc *tgt;
+
 	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;
+	tgt = lov->lov_tgts[idx];
+	rc = (!tgt || tgt->ltd_active ||
+	      (tgt->ltd_exp &&
+	       class_exp2cliimp(tgt->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried));
 
 	mutex_unlock(&lov->lov_lock);
+
 	return rc;
 }
 


--
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/