[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87frjo4fpe.fsf@prevas.dk>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 23:51:41 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Howells
<dhowells@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara
<jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/pipe.c: merge if statements with identical conditions
On Fri, Mar 07 2025, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:25:00PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> As 'head' is not updated after head+1 is assigned to pipe->head, the
>> condition being tested here is exactly the same as in the big if
>> statement just above. Merge the two bodies.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
>> ---
>> fs/pipe.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
>> index 097400cce241..27385e3e5417 100644
>> --- a/fs/pipe.c
>> +++ b/fs/pipe.c
>> @@ -547,10 +547,8 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>>
>> if (!iov_iter_count(from))
>> break;
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (!pipe_full(head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage))
>> continue;
>> + }
>>
>> /* Wait for buffer space to become available. */
>> if ((filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) ||
>
> I already posted this :)
>
Ah, never mind then, also for that other patch I just sent. Just
stumbled on those while trying to proof-read the pipe code.
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists