We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
@@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
send_args(r, lkb, ms);
- error = send_message(mh, ms);
- if (error)
- goto fail;
- return 0;
+ return send_message(mh, ms);
fail:
remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
@@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct dlm_lkb *lkb)
send_args(r, lkb, ms);
- error = send_message(mh, ms);
- if (error)
- goto fail;
- return 0;
+ return send_message(mh, ms);
fail:
remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
--
1.7.12.4
----- Original Message -----
> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
>
> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>
> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
> - if (error)
> - goto fail;
> - return 0;
> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>
> fail:
> remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
> @@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> dlm_lkb *lkb)
>
> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>
> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
> - if (error)
> - goto fail;
> - return 0;
> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>
> fail:
> remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
> --
> 1.7.12.4
Hi,
The patch looks okay, but if remove_from_waiters() always returns 0,
wouldn't it be better to change the function from int to void and
return 0 here? The advantage is that code spelunkers wouldn't need
to back-track one more level (not to mention the instruction or two
it might save).
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
>>
>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>
>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
>> - if (error)
>> - goto fail;
>> - return 0;
>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>>
>> fail:
>> remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
>> @@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>> dlm_lkb *lkb)
>>
>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>
>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
>> - if (error)
>> - goto fail;
>> - return 0;
>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>>
>> fail:
>> remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
>> --
>> 1.7.12.4
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> The patch looks okay, but if remove_from_waiters() always returns 0,
> wouldn't it be better to change the function from int to void and
> return 0 here? The advantage is that code spelunkers wouldn't need
> to back-track one more level (not to mention the instruction or two
> it might save).
>
>
Seems remove_from_waiters is not always returns 0, the return value
could be -1 or 0 which depends on _remove_from_waiters.
BTW, I found that there are no big difference between send_common
and send_lookup, since the send_common can also be use to send
lookup message, I guess send_lookup can be removed as well.
Thanks,
Guoqing
----- Original Message -----
> Hi Bob,
>
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
> >> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> >> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
> >>
> >> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
> >>
> >> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
> >> - if (error)
> >> - goto fail;
> >> - return 0;
> >> + return send_message(mh, ms);
> >>
> >> fail:
> >> remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
> >> @@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> >> dlm_lkb *lkb)
> >>
> >> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
> >>
> >> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
> >> - if (error)
> >> - goto fail;
> >> - return 0;
> >> + return send_message(mh, ms);
> >>
> >> fail:
> >> remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
> >> --
> >> 1.7.12.4
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The patch looks okay, but if remove_from_waiters() always returns 0,
> > wouldn't it be better to change the function from int to void and
> > return 0 here? The advantage is that code spelunkers wouldn't need
> > to back-track one more level (not to mention the instruction or two
> > it might save).
> >
> >
> Seems remove_from_waiters is not always returns 0, the return value
> could be -1 or 0 which depends on _remove_from_waiters.
>
> BTW, I found that there are no big difference between send_common
> and send_lookup, since the send_common can also be use to send
> lookup message, I guess send_lookup can be removed as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Guoqing
Hi Guoqing,
If remove_from_waiters can return -1, then the patch would prevent the
code from calling remove_from_waiters. So the patch still doesn't look
right to me.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Bob Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>>>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
>>>>
>>>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>>>
>>>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
>>>> - if (error)
>>>> - goto fail;
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>>>>
>>>> fail:
>>>> remove_from_waiters(lkb, msg_reply_type(mstype));
>>>> @@ -3763,10 +3760,7 @@ static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>>>> dlm_lkb *lkb)
>>>>
>>>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>>>
>>>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
>>>> - if (error)
>>>> - goto fail;
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>>>>
>>>> fail:
>>>> remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
>>>> --
>>>> 1.7.12.4
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The patch looks okay, but if remove_from_waiters() always returns 0,
>>> wouldn't it be better to change the function from int to void and
>>> return 0 here? The advantage is that code spelunkers wouldn't need
>>> to back-track one more level (not to mention the instruction or two
>>> it might save).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Seems remove_from_waiters is not always returns 0, the return value
>> could be -1 or 0 which depends on _remove_from_waiters.
>>
>> BTW, I found that there are no big difference between send_common
>> and send_lookup, since the send_common can also be use to send
>> lookup message, I guess send_lookup can be removed as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Guoqing
>>
>
> Hi Guoqing,
>
> If remove_from_waiters can return -1, then the patch would prevent the
> code from calling remove_from_waiters. So the patch still doesn't look
> right to me.
>
>
Hi Bob,
The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
create_message, right?
Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
about the failure
path, and it also doesn't change the original semantic.
Thanks,
Guoqing
----- Original Message -----
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Bob Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> >>>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
> >>>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
> >>>>
> >>>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
> >>>>
> >>>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
> >>>> - if (error)
> >>>> - goto fail;
> >>>> - return 0;
> >>>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
Hi Guoqing,
Sorry, I was momentarily confused. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
What I meant was: Instead of doing:
+ return send_message(mh, ms);
...where send_message returns 0, it might be better to have:
static void send_message(struct dlm_mhandle *mh, struct dlm_message *ms)
{
dlm_message_out(ms);
dlm_lowcomms_commit_buffer(mh);
}
...And in send_common, do (in both places):
+ send_message(mh, ms);
+ return 0;
Since it's so short, it might even be better to code send_message as a macro,
or at least an "inline" function.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
> create_message, right?
> Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
> about the failure
> path, and it also doesn't change the original semantic.
I'm not inclined to take any patches unless there's a problem identified.
Bob Peterson wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++--------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>>>> index 35502d4..6fc3de9 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
>>>>>> @@ -3656,10 +3656,7 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
>>>>>> dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> send_args(r, lkb, ms);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - error = send_message(mh, ms);
>>>>>> - if (error)
>>>>>> - goto fail;
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> + return send_message(mh, ms);
>>>>>>
>
> Hi Guoqing,
>
> Sorry, I was momentarily confused. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
> What I meant was: Instead of doing:
>
> + return send_message(mh, ms);
> ...where send_message returns 0, it might be better to have:
>
> static void send_message(struct dlm_mhandle *mh, struct dlm_message *ms)
> {
> dlm_message_out(ms);
> dlm_lowcomms_commit_buffer(mh);
> }
>
> ...And in send_common, do (in both places):
> + send_message(mh, ms);
> + return 0;
>
> Since it's so short, it might even be better to code send_message as a macro,
> or at least an "inline" function.
>
>
Hi Bob,
Got it, thanks. It is a better solution but it is not a bug fix or
similar thing, so maybe just leave it as it is.
Regards,
Guoqing
Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>
>> The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
>> create_message, right?
>> Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
>> about the failure
>> path, and it also doesn't change the original semantic.
>>
>
> I'm not inclined to take any patches unless there's a problem identified.
>
> .
>
Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
formal patch,
otherwise pls ignore it.
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index 35502d4..7c822f7 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
@@ -3747,30 +3747,7 @@ static int send_bast(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
dlm_lkb *lkb, int mode)
static int send_lookup(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct dlm_lkb *lkb)
{
- struct dlm_message *ms;
- struct dlm_mhandle *mh;
- int to_nodeid, error;
-
- to_nodeid = dlm_dir_nodeid(r);
-
- error = add_to_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP, to_nodeid);
- if (error)
- return error;
-
- error = create_message(r, NULL, to_nodeid, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP, &ms,
&mh);
- if (error)
- goto fail;
-
- send_args(r, lkb, ms);
-
- error = send_message(mh, ms);
- if (error)
- goto fail;
- return 0;
-
- fail:
- remove_from_waiters(lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP_REPLY);
- return error;
+ return send_common(r, lkb, DLM_MSG_LOOKUP);
}
Thanks,
Guoqing
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
> formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
so let's leave it as it is.
> - to_nodeid = dlm_dir_nodeid(r);
Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>
>> Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
>> formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
>>
>
> On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
> so let's leave it as it is.
>
>
>> - to_nodeid = dlm_dir_nodeid(r);
>>
Sorry, seems it is the only different thing, if combines previous change
with below modification, then the behavior is same.
@@ -3644,7 +3644,10 @@ static int send_common(struct dlm_rsb *r, struct
dlm_lkb *lkb, int mstype)
struct dlm_mhandle *mh;
int to_nodeid, error;
- to_nodeid = r->res_nodeid;
+ if (mstype == DLM_MSG_LOOKUP)
+ to_nodeid = dlm_dir_nodeid(r);
+ else
+ to_nodeid = r->res_nodeid;
And for create_message, the second parameter (lkb) is not effective to
create three type msgs (REQUEST/LOOKUP/REMOVE).
Thanks,
Guoqing