[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <130ce081-e9a2-4744-c74b-b73bea5ae98c@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:00:15 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] blk-throttle: Move three assignments for the variable
"ret" in tg_set_max()
>> @@ -1327,27 +1327,30 @@ static ssize_t tg_set_max(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>> break;
>> ctx.body += len;
>>
>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>> p = tok;
>> strsep(&p, "=");
>> - if (!p || (sscanf(p, "%llu", &val) != 1 && strcmp(p, "max")))
>> + if (!p || (sscanf(p, "%llu", &val) != 1 && strcmp(p, "max"))) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out_finish;
>> + }
>
> Sorry, I don't like this patch. We know the next error if we encounter one
> will be EINVAL until we change it.
Thanks for your constructive feedback.
> Your patch doesn't introduce a functual change and doesn't improve readability,
> so I don't really see a point for it.
We have got different preferences for the placement of error code settings.
Do you care about run time changes there?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists