On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 05:46 -0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > Though hard to read, the removed looks unnecessary. > > Then it is clear. > > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <[email protected]> > --- > > --- a/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c 2010-11-01 19:54:12.000000000 +0800 > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libfc/fc_rport.c 2010-12-07 20:47:40.000000000 +0800 > @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ static void fc_rport_error_retry(struct > > /* make sure this isn't an FC_EX_CLOSED error, never retry those */ > if (PTR_ERR(fp) == -FC_EX_CLOSED) > - return fc_rport_error(rdata, fp); > + goto out; > > if (rdata->retries < rdata->local_port->max_rport_retry_count) { > FC_RPORT_DBG(rdata, "Error %ld in state %s, retrying\n", > @@ -585,10 +585,10 @@ static void fc_rport_error_retry(struct > if (PTR_ERR(fp) == -FC_EX_TIMEOUT) > delay = 0; > schedule_delayed_work(&rdata->retry_work, delay); > - return;
My preference would be to leave this return and remove the 'else'. I think it makes the code more readable and although there will still be two return statements, I don't think it's a big deal. > } > - > - return fc_rport_error(rdata, fp); > + else > + out: > + fc_rport_error(rdata, fp); > } > > /** > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
