Re: [PATCH] xfs: prevent deadlock in xfs_qm_shake()

[Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:57:20AM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
> 
> (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT && gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)  != 0   or as Andi noted
> (gfp_mask & (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_FS)) == (__GFP_WAIT|__GFP_FS)
> 
> I'd prefer the former, as in my original patch.
> 
> Also, I accidentally put an extra open brace in a statement. After a
> successful build I started playing with braces for more readability,
> and left it in inconsistent state.
> Seems like the preferred style in the kernel is as following:
> 
> return ((gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) != 0;

I would say it is

return (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS);

The != 0 is completely superfluous.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.