Joseph Qi
2019-Sep-02 10:06 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH][V2] ocfs2: remove deadcode on variable tmp_oh check
On 19/9/2 17:34, Colin King wrote:> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com> > > At the end of ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker tmp_oh is true because an > 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. > > Also update description in comment, return -EINVAL and not -1. > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi at linux.alibaba.com>> --- > > V2: Fix typo of function name in description. > Update description in comment as noted by Joseph Qi > > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c > index ad594fef2ab0..640eee2bb903 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c > @@ -2626,7 +2626,8 @@ void ocfs2_inode_unlock(struct inode *inode, > * > * return < 0 on error, return == 0 if there's no lock holder on the stack > * before this call, return == 1 if this call would be a recursive locking. > - * return == -1 if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is forbidden. > + * return == -EINVAL if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is > + * forbidden. > * > * When taking lock levels into account,we face some different situations. > * > @@ -2712,7 +2713,7 @@ 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, >