linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: lclient: Removed the else statement

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: <55FAEF8C.7020204@innercoder.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:51:24 -0500
From:	Jaime Arrocha <jarr@...ercoder.com>
To:	Anjali Menon <cse.anjalimenon@...il.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
CC:	oleg.drokin@...el.com, jinshan.xiong@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: lclient: Removed the else statement


On 09/17/2015 11:14 AM, Anjali Menon wrote:
> Removed the else statement along with some unwanted brackets
> to fix the following coding style warning detected by
> checkpatch.
>
> WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
>
> Signed-off-by: Anjali Menon <cse.anjalimenon@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c | 16 +++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> index ab6cb41..23092fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lclient/lcommon_cl.c
> @@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ int ccc_prep_size(const struct lu_env *env, struct cl_object *obj,
>   					*exceed = 1;
>   			}
>   			return result;
> -		} else {
> +		}
>   			/*
>   			 * region is within kms and, hence, within real file
>   			 * size (A). We need to increase i_size to cover the
> @@ -847,14 +847,12 @@ int ccc_prep_size(const struct lu_env *env, struct cl_object *obj,
>   			 * which will always be >= the kms value here.
>   			 * b=11081
>   			 */
> -			if (cl_isize_read(inode) < kms) {
> -				cl_isize_write_nolock(inode, kms);
> -				CDEBUG(D_VFSTRACE,
> -				       DFID" updating i_size %llu\n",
> -				       PFID(lu_object_fid(&obj->co_lu)),
> -				       (__u64)cl_isize_read(inode));
> -
> -			}
> +		if (cl_isize_read(inode) < kms) {
> +			cl_isize_write_nolock(inode, kms);
> +			CDEBUG(D_VFSTRACE,
> +				DFID" updating i_size %llu\n",
> +				PFID(lu_object_fid(&obj->co_lu)),
> +				(__u64)cl_isize_read(inode));
>   		}
>   	}
>   	ccc_object_size_unlock(obj);
I think the "else"  bracket is needed for when the statement "pos > kms" 
is not true, but it might work since there's only two choices tested. 
The checkpatch.pl error can bring notices like that, what's important is 
the context of the code.
It might be there to increase readability since it is kind of an obvious 
situation.
That's just my analysis.

-JA

--
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/