[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877du1h7db.fsf@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 11:03:28 +0100
From: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
"ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ceph: remove unnecessary return in switch statement
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> writes:
> From: Luis Henriques
>> Sent: 14 August 2020 10:38
>>
>> Since there's a return immediately after the 'break', there's no need for
>> this extra 'return' in the S_IFDIR case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
>> ---
>> fs/ceph/file.c | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> index d51c3f2fdca0..04ab99c0223a 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/file.c
>> @@ -256,8 +256,6 @@ static int ceph_init_file(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, int fmode)
>> case S_IFDIR:
>> ret = ceph_init_file_info(inode, file, fmode,
>> S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode));
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> break;
>>
>> case S_IFLNK:
>
> I'd move the other way and just do:
> return ceph_init_file_info(...);
Sure, that would work too, although my preference would be to have a
single function exit point. But I'll leave that decision to Jeff :-)
Cheers,
--
Luis
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists