md/raid1:Remove unnecessary judgement.

PATCH majianpeng 2 participants 2 messages Mar 31, 2012 – Apr 2, 2012 MD RAID

Share & tools

majianpeng

author

2012-03-31 02:05 UTC #0 lore raw

From 033a0330eb210750ec09202ed95696b54d9afeba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: majianpeng <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:57:42 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] md/raid1:Remove unnecessary judgement.
If success == 1 then break the do{}while,so did not judge !success.

Signed-off-by majianpeng <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/md/raid1.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

drivers/md/raid1.c +1 -1

index 4a40a20..649941b 100644
@@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int fix_sync_read_error(struct r1bio *r1_bio)
 			d++;
 			if (d == conf->raid_disks * 2)
 				d = 0;
-		} while (!success && d != r1_bio->read_disk);
+		} while (d != r1_bio->read_disk);
 
 		if (!success) {
 			char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];

Signature · 6 lines

1.7.5.4

 				
--------------
majianpeng
2012-03-31

NeilBrown

2012-04-02 01:25 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 17 lines · On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:05:23 +0800 "majianpeng" <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 1 line
From 033a0330eb210750ec09202ed95696b54d9afeba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: majianpeng <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:57:42 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] md/raid1:Remove unnecessary judgement. If success == 1 then break the do{}while,so did not judge !success.
Signed-off-by majianpeng <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/md/raid1.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/md/raid1.c +0 -0
index 4a40a20..649941b 100644

drivers/md/raid1.c static int fix_sync_read_error(struct r1bio *r1_bio) · line 1630

Quoted 8 lines

drivers/md/raid1.c +1 -1

@@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int fix_sync_read_error(struct r1bio *r1_bio)
 			d++;
 			if (d == conf->raid_disks * 2)
 				d = 0;
-		} while (!success && d != r1_bio->read_disk);
+		} while (d != r1_bio->read_disk);
 
 		if (!success) {
 			char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];

This is another micro-optimisation that doesn't really buy us anything.

I actually like the fact that the 'while' condition makes it clear that lot loop doesn't continue after we reach 'success'. So I think I'll leave it the way it is.

Thanks,
NeilBrown