Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/lustre/mgc: Combine two seq_printf() calls into one call in lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:58:37AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
> On Jan 1, 2017, at 11:35 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:



Oleg, please realize that I have blacklisted this patch author, and
don't take contributions from them, unless you, or someone else wishes
to properly review and pass them on.  I've found that personally, it's
just a waste of time working with them, but you are free to do whatever
you wish...

good luck!

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/lustre/mgc: Combine two seq_printf() calls into one call in lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:58:37AM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
> On Jan 1, 2017, at 11:35 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:



Oleg, please realize that I have blacklisted this patch author, and
don't take contributions from them, unless you, or someone else wishes
to properly review and pass them on.  I've found that personally, it's
just a waste of time working with them, but you are free to do whatever
you wish...

good luck!

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/lustre/mgc: Combine two seq_printf() calls into one call in lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state()

[Oleg Drokin]

On Jan 1, 2017, at 11:35 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring 
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:40:29 +0100
> 
> Some data were printed into a sequence by two separate function calls.
> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c 
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> index b9c522a3c7a4..a6ca48d7e96b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> @@ -460,11 +460,8 @@ int lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state(struct seq_file *m, void 
> *data)
> 
>   imp = obd->u.cli.cl_import;
>   ocd = >imp_connect_data;
> -
> - seq_printf(m, "imperative_recovery: %s\n",
> + seq_printf(m, "imperative_recovery: %s\nclient_state:\n",
>  OCD_HAS_FLAG(ocd, IMP_RECOV) ? "ENABLED" : "DISABLED");
> - seq_printf(m, "client_state:\n");
> -

Ugh, do we really need this?
I know it saves one call to seq_printf, but this is not a super 
performance-critical
code, and two calls are actually easier to read, don't you think?

>   spin_lock(_list_lock);
>   list_for_each_entry(cld, _llog_list, cld_list_chain) {
>   if (!cld->cld_recover)
> -- 
> 2.11.0

Re: [PATCH 2/5] staging/lustre/mgc: Combine two seq_printf() calls into one call in lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state()

[Oleg Drokin]

On Jan 1, 2017, at 11:35 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring 
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:40:29 +0100
> 
> Some data were printed into a sequence by two separate function calls.
> Print the same data by a single function call instead.
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring 
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c 
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> index b9c522a3c7a4..a6ca48d7e96b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c
> @@ -460,11 +460,8 @@ int lprocfs_mgc_rd_ir_state(struct seq_file *m, void 
> *data)
> 
>   imp = obd->u.cli.cl_import;
>   ocd = >imp_connect_data;
> -
> - seq_printf(m, "imperative_recovery: %s\n",
> + seq_printf(m, "imperative_recovery: %s\nclient_state:\n",
>  OCD_HAS_FLAG(ocd, IMP_RECOV) ? "ENABLED" : "DISABLED");
> - seq_printf(m, "client_state:\n");
> -

Ugh, do we really need this?
I know it saves one call to seq_printf, but this is not a super 
performance-critical
code, and two calls are actually easier to read, don't you think?

>   spin_lock(_list_lock);
>   list_for_each_entry(cld, _llog_list, cld_list_chain) {
>   if (!cld->cld_recover)
> -- 
> 2.11.0