On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:34:56PM +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
> It is silly to go through an if statement to set a single boolean
> value in function of a single boolean expression. In the function
> lov_check_set, assign the return value directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Riccardo Lucchese <riccardo.lucchese@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> index ce830e4..90fc66a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> @@ -140,14 +140,13 @@ void lov_set_add_req(struct lov_request *req, struct lov_request_set *set)
>
> static int lov_check_set(struct lov_obd *lov, int idx)
> {
> - int rc = 0;
> + int rc;
> mutex_lock(&lov->lov_lock);
>
> - if (lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> - lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> - (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> - class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried))
> - rc = 1;
> + rc = lov->lov_tgts[idx] == NULL ||
> + lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_active ||
> + (lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp != NULL &&
> + class_exp2cliimp(lov->lov_tgts[idx]->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
I don't see how this makes the code more readable at all.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
