Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220314150321.17720-1-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> <0d79b44c-d51e-282c-99a0-78ae6c9f6f01@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <0d79b44c-d51e-282c-99a0-78ae6c9f6f01@kernel.dk>
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:33:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMz4XkWTizAjD9nB3x47Fu4+1=pQgWRQNnFzxqCPr8cFSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sr: simplify the local variable initialization in sr_block_open()
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:05 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 3/14/22 9:03 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > Commit 01d0c698536f ("sr: implement ->free_disk to simplify refcounting")
> > refactored sr_block_open(), initialized one variable with a duplicate
> > assignment (probably an unintended copy & paste duplication) and turned one
> > error case into an early return, which makes the initialization of the
> > return variable needless.
> >
> > So, simplify the local variable initialization in sr_block_open() to make
> > the code a bit more clear.
> >
> > No functional change. No change in resulting object code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Christoph, please ack.
> >
> > Jens, please pick this minor clean-up on your -next branch on top of the
> > commit above.
>
> Should it have a Fixes line?
>

As it is really just syntactic clean-up, it does not deserve the
attention for any kind of severity assessment or potential
backporting, which usually comes with a Fixes: tag.

So, I personally do not consider a Fixes: tag needed. The code works
well before this patch, and well after this patch; it is just a bit
more clear now.

Lukas

> --
> Jens Axboe
>