Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 31.08.2007 [13:43:18 +0200], Richard Knutsson wrote:
Andi Drebes wrote:
This patch removes a variable from fs/cramfs/inode.c that is just used to
store
a return value which is immediately read afterwards.
Tested on an i386 box.
Signed-off-by: Andi Drebes <lists-receive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/fs/cramfs/inode.c b/fs/cramfs/inode.c
index 350680f..42d2cf8 100644
--- a/fs/cramfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/cramfs/inode.c
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ static int cramfs_readdir(struct file *filp, void
*dirent, filldir_t filldir)
char *name;
ino_t ino;
mode_t mode;
- int namelen, error;
+ int namelen;
mutex_lock(&read_mutex);
de = cramfs_read(sb, OFFSET(inode) + offset,
sizeof(*de)+CRAMFS_MAXPATHLEN);
@@ -398,8 +398,7 @@ static int cramfs_readdir(struct file *filp, void
*dirent, filldir_t filldir)
break;
namelen--;
}
- error = filldir(dirent, buf, namelen, offset, ino, mode >>
12);
- if (error)
+ if(filldir(dirent, buf, namelen, offset, ino, mode >> 12))
Maybe picky but please leave it as "if (".
Beyond that, I just don't like this change. I thought the preferred way
for these types of statements was the previous version. That is:
error = filldir(...);
if (error)
error stuff
Rather than a conditional with potential side-effects?
Which side-effects are you thinking of? We quite often have:
if (!if_this_fails_it_all_fails())
return -FAILED;
but we also have:
if ((p = malloc(...)) == NULL)
...
and that is a different story (IMHO).
But I don't mind either way...
(the compiler will get rid of it anyway, right?)
cu
Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
