[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH 19/23] Warning - dead code problem elimination



Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com> writes:

> On 12/21/2010 04:41 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> @@ -653,8 +653,7 @@ static int _event_wait(struct thread_status *thread, struct dm_task **task)
>>  	if (dm_task_run(dmt)) {
>>  		thread->current_events |= DM_EVENT_DEVICE_ERROR;
>>  		ret = DM_WAIT_INTR;
>> -
>> -		if ((ret = dm_task_get_info(dmt, &info)))
>> +		if (dm_task_get_info(dmt, &info))
>>  			thread->event_nr = info.event_nr;
>>  	} else if (thread->events & DM_EVENT_TIMEOUT && errno == EINTR) {
>>  		thread->current_events |= DM_EVENT_TIMEOUT;
>
> #define DM_WAIT_RETRY 0
> #define DM_WAIT_INTR 1
>
> dm_task_get_info returns 0/1 - it is probably intended such way?
>
> I think you should return DM_WAIT_RETRY if info fails then (so the code _was_ correct)?
>
> mornfall? :)

Jeez, I wish I knew! I don't think I wrote this code. Anyway, it would
make sense to add ret = DM_WAIT_RETRY in the else branch (i.e. get_info
fails). Not that this is likely to ever trigger...

Petr


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]