Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Colin King <> | Subject | [PATCH][V2] ocfs2: remove deadcode on variable tmp_oh check | Date | Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:34:34 +0100 |
| |
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@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@canonical.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, -- 2.20.1
| |