[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: optimize error handling in dlm_request_join

Joseph Qi
2015-08-20T12:42:05Z

On 2015/8/20 19:50, Norton.Zhu wrote:
> Currently error handling in dlm_request_join is a little obscure.
> So optimize it to promote readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Norton.Zhu <norton.zhu at huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at huawei.com>

> ---
>  fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c | 69
++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> index 7df88a6..af4f7aa 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> @@ -1465,39 +1465,44 @@ static int dlm_request_join(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>  	if (status == -ENOPROTOOPT) {
>  		status = 0;
>  		*response = JOIN_OK_NO_MAP;
> -	} else if (packet.code == JOIN_DISALLOW ||
> -		   packet.code == JOIN_OK_NO_MAP) {
> -		*response = packet.code;
> -	} else if (packet.code == JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH) {
> -		mlog(ML_NOTICE,
> -		     "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
> -		     "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u.  At least one of "
> -		     "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
> -		     "disconnecting\n",
> -		     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> -		     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> -		     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> -		     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> -		     node);
> -		status = -EPROTO;
> -		*response = packet.code;
> -	} else if (packet.code == JOIN_OK) {
> -		*response = packet.code;
> -		/* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
> -		dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
> -		dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
> -		mlog(0,
> -		     "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
> -		     "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
> -		     node,
> -		     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> -		     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> -		     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> -		     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
>  	} else {
> -		status = -EINVAL;
> -		mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
> -		     packet.code, node);
> +		*response = packet.code;
> +		switch (packet.code) {
> +		case JOIN_DISALLOW:
> +		case JOIN_OK_NO_MAP:
> +			break;
> +		case JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH:
> +			mlog(ML_NOTICE,
> +			     "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
> +			     "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u.  At least one of "
> +			     "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
> +			     "disconnecting\n",
> +			     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> +			     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> +			     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> +			     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> +			     node);
> +			status = -EPROTO;
> +			break;
> +		case JOIN_OK:
> +			/* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
> +			dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
> +			dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
> +			mlog(0,
> +			     "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
> +			     "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
> +			     node,
> +			     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> +			     dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> +			     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> +			     dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			status = -EINVAL;
> +			mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
> +			     packet.code, node);
> +			break;
> +		}
>  	}
>
>  	mlog(0, "status %d, node %d response is %d\n", status, node,
>