On 19/8/30 19:16, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> At the end of cfs2_inode_lock_tracker tmp_oh is true because an
s/cfs2_inode_lock_tracker/ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker/
BTW, could you please correct the following description of this
function as well?
"return == -1 if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is forbidden."
In fact, it returns -EINVAL.
Thanks,
Joseph
> earlier check on tmp_oh being false returns out of the function.
> Since tmp_oh is true, the function will always return 1 so remove
> the redundant check and return of 0.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> index ad594fef2ab0..ff0cf851c9e6 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
> @@ -2712,7 +2712,7 @@ int ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
> return status;
> }
> }
> - return tmp_oh ? 1 : 0;
> + return 1;
> }
>
> void ocfs2_inode_unlock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
>
