xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition

To: David Binderman <linuxdev.baldrick@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:32:08 -0700
Cc: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dcb314@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAMzoamagYyR5x4UWfLb1HZ5zf4ZYQzEpTC8Q-89gd0pA4dTK5g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAMzoamagYyR5x4UWfLb1HZ5zf4ZYQzEpTC8Q-89gd0pA4dTK5g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:13:28PM +0100, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
> 
> linux-4.7/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition:
> eofb. '!eofb || (eofb && eofb.eof_scan_owner!=0)' is equivalent to
> '!eofb || eofb.eof_scan_owner!=0'
> 
> Source code is
> 
>    ASSERT(!eofb || (eofb && eofb->eof_scan_owner != 0));
> 
> Maybe better code
> 
>    ASSERT(!eofb || (eofb->eof_scan_owner != 0));

Yes, that would be better.  But it's probably not worth changing
existing code just for that.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition, Christoph Hellwig <=