On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:20:58AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Remove unneeded variable used to store return value.
>
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/returnvar.cocci
>
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Is it correct to be returning 0 in the level == 0 case?
Yes, because level == 0 is the root node for xfs dir/attr btree cursors
(which is confusing since level == 0 are leaf nodes for the regular xfs
btree cursors). Therefore if level == 0 we're at the root and there are
no parent hash values to check.
That said, you're absolutely right that we don't need the intermediate
variable in either function.
--D
>
> dabtree.c | 9 +++------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/dabtree.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/dabtree.c
> @@ -96,7 +96,6 @@ xfs_scrub_da_btree_hash(
> struct xfs_da_node_entry *btree;
> xfs_dahash_t hash;
> xfs_dahash_t parent_hash;
> - int error = 0;
>
> /* Is this hash in order? */
> hash = be32_to_cpu(*hashp);
> @@ -104,7 +103,7 @@ xfs_scrub_da_btree_hash(
> ds->hashes[level] = hash;
>
> if (level == 0)
> - return error;
> + return 0;
>
> /* Is this hash no larger than the parent hash? */
> blks = ds->state->path.blk;
> @@ -112,7 +111,7 @@ xfs_scrub_da_btree_hash(
> parent_hash = be32_to_cpu(btree->hashval);
> XFS_SCRUB_DA_CHECK(ds, hash <= parent_hash);
>
> - return error;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /* Scrub a da btree pointer. */
> @@ -122,12 +121,10 @@ xfs_scrub_da_btree_ptr(
> int level,
> xfs_dablk_t blkno)
> {
> - int error = 0;
> -
> XFS_SCRUB_DA_CHECK(ds, blkno >= ds->lowest);
> XFS_SCRUB_DA_CHECK(ds, ds->highest == 0 || blkno < ds->highest);
>
> - return error;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
