On Jan 1, 2017, at 11:38 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:26:36 +0100
>
> Some data were printed into a sequence by two separate function calls.
> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> index 3f6fcab5a1fc..a167cbe8a50e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
> @@ -853,10 +853,8 @@ int lprocfs_rd_state(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> return rc;
>
> imp = obd->u.cli.cl_import;
> -
> - seq_printf(m, "current_state: %s\n",
> + seq_printf(m, "current_state: %s\nstate_history:\n",
> ptlrpc_import_state_name(imp->imp_state));
> - seq_printf(m, "state_history:\n");
same as in that other patch - this actually makes the code a bit harder to read,
what's the perceived benefit to make a change like this?
> k = imp->imp_state_hist_idx;
> for (j = 0; j < IMP_STATE_HIST_LEN; j++) {
> struct import_state_hist *ish =
> --
> 2.11.0
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
