On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 02:37:47PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
> > Dan,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 07:52:53AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:34:56PM +0200, Riccardo Lucchese wrote:
[...]
> > > I don't see how this makes the code more readable at all.
> >
> > Thank you for the comment. Would you consider something like the
> > following diff instead ? Otherwise, I will resend the series for
> > review without this change.
> >
> > riccardo
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > index ce830e4..ae670bb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
> > @@ -140,14 +140,14 @@ 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;
> > + struct lov_tgt_desc *desc;
> > 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;
> > + desc = lov->lov_tgts[idx];
> > + rc = !desc || desc->ltd_active ||
> > + (desc->ltd_exp &&
> > + class_exp2cliimp(desc->ltd_exp)->imp_connect_tried);
>
> Sure, I suppose. Using "desc" is a clean up. Otherwise the original
> code was not "silly". It was fine.
The adjective "silly" was inappropriate and misleading, sorry about
that.
> I'm curious why you think if statements are less readable than other
> statements. That seems like nonsense.
Not in general but, in this case, I find the patched code clearer.
Thanks,
riccardo
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
