if (ret) is useless as it will be never NULL as in previous statement we are setting ret = prev for !ret Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c index e56c72b..7b04008 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c @@ -154,8 +154,7 @@ static inline struct rb_node *tree_search(struct btrfs_ordered_inode_tree *tree, ret = __tree_search(root, file_offset, &prev); if (!ret) ret = prev; - if (ret) - tree->last = ret; + tree->last = ret; return ret; } -- 1.7.2.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:> > if (ret) is useless as it will be never NULL as in previous statement > we are setting ret = prev for !retIf there is no match and no extent below the given file offset, `prev'' will be NULL as well, no? So the check is not useless, it prevents throwing out a cached success in case of a lookup failure.> Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com> > Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 3 +-- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > index e56c72b..7b04008 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c > @@ -154,8 +154,7 @@ static inline struct rb_node *tree_search(struct btrfs_ordered_inode_tree *tree, > ret = __tree_search(root, file_offset, &prev); > if (!ret) > ret = prev; > - if (ret) > - tree->last = ret; > + tree->last = ret; > return ret; > } > > -- > 1.7.2.2 > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
Hello, On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: >> >> if (ret) is useless as it will be never NULL as in previous statement >> we are setting ret = prev for !ret > > If there is no match and no extent below the given file offset, `prev'' > will be NULL as well, no? > > So the check is not useless, it prevents throwing out a cached success > in case of a lookup failure. >Got it !! Thanks, -- Jaswinder Singh. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderlinux@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello, > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0530, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: >>> >>> if (ret) is useless as it will be never NULL as in previous statement >>> we are setting ret = prev for !ret >> >> If there is no match and no extent below the given file offset, `prev'' >> will be NULL as well, no? >> >> So the check is not useless, it prevents throwing out a cached success >> in case of a lookup failure. >> > > Got it !! >Wouldn''t it be clearer and easier to read if prev was checked directly instead of checking ret after it becomes the same as prev? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html