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]

Message-ID: <1545280635.13245793.1433851749238.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:09:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
To:	Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.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

----- 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).

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
--
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/