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

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

Message-ID: <20140720110836.GC12613@rlp>
Date:	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:08:36 +0200
From:	Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@...il.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, oleg.drokin@...el.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, josh@...htriplett.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()

Dan,

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 07:52:53AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:34:56PM +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.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c | 11 +++++------
> >  1 file changed, 5 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..90fc66a 100644
> > --- 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);
> 
> I don't see how this makes the code more readable at all.

Thank you for the comment. Would you consider something like the
following diff instead ? Otherwise, I will resend the series for
review without this change.

riccardo

---

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
index ce830e4..ae670bb 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
@@ -140,14 +140,14 @@ 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 lov_tgt_desc *desc;
 	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;
+	desc = lov->lov_tgts[idx];
+	rc = !desc || desc->ltd_active ||
+		(desc->ltd_exp &&
+		 class_exp2cliimp(desc->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
 
 	mutex_unlock(&lov->lov_lock);
 	return rc;
-- 
1.9.1
--
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/