fs/xfs: Correcting error-prone boolean-statement
PATCH 2/2 fs/xfs: Correcting error-prone boolean-statement
From: Richard Knutsson <[email protected]>
Converting error-prone statement:
"if (var == B_FALSE)" into "if (!var)"
"if (var == B_TRUE)" into "if (var)"
---
Compile-tested
Please Cc: since I'm not on [email protected]
xfs_log.c | 4 ++--xfs_vfsops.c | 16 ++++++++--------
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
fs/xfs/xfs_log.c +0 -0
@@ -3484,7 +3484,7 @@ xlog_verify_iclog(xlog_t *log,
/* clientid is only 1 byte */
field_offset = (__psint_t)
((xfs_caddr_t)&(ophead->oh_clientid) - base_ptr);
- if (syncing == B_FALSE || (field_offset & 0x1ff)) {
+ if (!syncing || (field_offset & 0x1ff)) {
clientid = ophead->oh_clientid;
} else {
idx = BTOBBT((xfs_caddr_t)&(ophead->oh_clientid) - iclog->ic_datap);
@@ -3504,7 +3504,7 @@ xlog_verify_iclog(xlog_t *log,
/* check length */
field_offset = (__psint_t)
((xfs_caddr_t)&(ophead->oh_len) - base_ptr);
- if (syncing == B_FALSE || (field_offset & 0x1ff)) {
+ if (!syncing || (field_offset & 0x1ff)) {
op_len = INT_GET(ophead->oh_len, ARCH_CONVERT);
} else {
idx = BTOBBT((__psint_t)&ophead->oh_len -fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c +0 -0
@@ -935,7 +935,7 @@ xfs_sync_inodes(* longer be locked. */
#define IPOINTER_INSERT(ip, mp) { \
- ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE); \
+ ASSERT(!ipointer_in); \ ipointer->ip_mnext = ip->i_mnext; \ ipointer->ip_mprev = ip; \ ip->i_mnext = (xfs_inode_t *)ipointer; \
@@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ xfs_sync_inodes(
* past us.
*/
#define IPOINTER_REMOVE(ip, mp) { \
- ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_TRUE); \
+ ASSERT(ipointer_in); \
if (ipointer->ip_mnext != (xfs_inode_t *)ipointer) { \
ip = ipointer->ip_mnext; \
ip->i_mprev = ipointer->ip_mprev; \
@@ -1006,8 +1006,8 @@ xfs_sync_inodes(
IPOINTER_CLR;
do {- ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE);
- ASSERT(vnode_refed == B_FALSE);
+ ASSERT(!ipointer_in);
+ ASSERT(!vnode_refed);
lock_flags = base_lock_flags;
@@ -1372,7 +1372,7 @@ xfs_sync_inodes(
IPOINTER_REMOVE(ip, mp); } XFS_MOUNT_IUNLOCK(mp); - ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE); + ASSERT(!ipointer_in); kmem_free(ipointer, sizeof(xfs_iptr_t)); return XFS_ERROR(error); } @@ -1387,21 +1387,21 @@ xfs_sync_inodes( } }
- if (mount_locked == B_FALSE) {
+ if (!mount_locked) {
XFS_MOUNT_ILOCK(mp);
mount_locked = B_TRUE;
IPOINTER_REMOVE(ip, mp);
continue;
}- ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE);
+ ASSERT(!ipointer_in); ip = ip->i_mnext; } while (ip != mp->m_inodes); XFS_MOUNT_IUNLOCK(mp);
- ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE);
+ ASSERT(!ipointer_in);
kmem_free(ipointer, sizeof(xfs_iptr_t)); return XFS_ERROR(last_error);
Quoted 5 lines · Richard Knutsson
From: Richard Knutsson <[email protected]>
Converting error-prone statement:
"if (var ==B_FALSE)" into "if (!var)"
"if (var ==B_TRUE)" into "if (var)"
This is my preference too, rather than the local boolean usage which isn't used with any consistency... but:
Quoted 1 line
Compile-tested
Are you using XFS on your systems? What is your strategy for getting this runtime tested going to be? Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
cheers.
Signature · 1 line
Nathan
Quoted 16 lines · Nathan Scott
Quoted 7 lines · Richard Knutsson
From: Richard Knutsson <[email protected]>
Converting error-prone statement:
"if (var ==B_FALSE)" into "if (!var)"
"if (var ==B_TRUE)" into "if (var)"This is my preference too, rather than the local boolean usage which isn't used with any consistency... but:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Compile-tested
Are you using XFS on your systems? What is your strategy for getting this runtime tested going to be? Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
Sorry, can't say that I do. So pretty please... ;)
Seriously, I can not find a state when this may fail (if not "if (var == TRUE)" happend to be correct for 'var' != 0 != 1, but that is just a bug waiting to happend). But please correct me if I am wrong.
Quoted 3 lines
cheers.
cu
Quoted 9 lines · Richard Knutsson
Quoted 3 lines · Nathan Scott
Are you using XFS on your systems? What is your strategy for getting this runtime tested going to be? Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
Sorry, can't say that I do. So pretty please... ;) Seriously, I can not find a state when this may fail (if not "if (var == TRUE)" happend to be correct for 'var' != 0 != 1, but that is just a bug waiting to happend).
But please correct me if I am wrong.
OK, I'll run with it in my own testing for awhile. I was also curious to why you didn't remove the other few B_TRUE/B_FALSE occurences? (and the typedef)?
cheers.
Signature · 1 line
Nathan
Quoted 11 lines · Nathan Scott
Quoted 8 lines · Richard Knutsson
Quoted 5 lines · Nathan Scott
Are you using XFS on your systems? What is your strategy for getting this runtime tested going to be? Or are you delegating that responsibility? :)
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Sorry, can't say that I do. So pretty please... ;)
Seriously, I can not find a state when this may fail (if not "if (var == TRUE)" happend to be correct for 'var' != 0 != 1, but that is just a bug waiting to happend). But please correct me if I am wrong.OK, I'll run with it in my own testing for awhile.
Thanks!
Quoted 5 lines
I was also curious to
why you didn't remove the other few B_TRUE/B_FALSE occurences? (and the typedef)?
Working on it. Should be out tomorrow(or in about 20 hours).
From the "Re: Conversion to generic boolean"-thread (started on 06-08-28), there were those who did not seem to like the conversion. But since no-one complained about removing "== B_FALSE/B_TRUE", I thought it best to remove them first and then take the rest from there.
Quoted 4 lines
cheers.
cu