Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1453005 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-01 08:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-01 08:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-08-01 08:40 +0200
| From | Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-01 08:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition |
| Message-ID | <s1f3j-2I4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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.
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web