On 08/20/2015 04:50 AM, Norton.Zhu wrote:
> Currently error handling in dlm_request_join is a little obscure.
> So optimize it to promote readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Norton.Zhu <norton....@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c | 69
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> index 7df88a6..af4f7aa 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c
> @@ -1465,39 +1465,44 @@ static int dlm_request_join(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
> if (status == -ENOPROTOOPT) {
> status = 0;
> *response = JOIN_OK_NO_MAP;
> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_DISALLOW ||
> - packet.code == JOIN_OK_NO_MAP) {
> - *response = packet.code;
> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH) {
> - mlog(ML_NOTICE,
> - "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u and "
> - "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u. At least one of "
> - "the protocol versions on node %d is not compatible, "
> - "disconnecting\n",
> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> - node);
> - status = -EPROTO;
> - *response = packet.code;
> - } else if (packet.code == JOIN_OK) {
> - *response = packet.code;
> - /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
> - mlog(0,
> - "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking protocol "
> - "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
> - node,
> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> - dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> - dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
> } else {
> - status = -EINVAL;
> - mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
> - packet.code, node);
> + *response = packet.code;
Norton, it looks much better :)
one minor comment. we don't want to reset "*response" with packet.code
if it's unrecognized. We should leave the value to JOIN_DISALLOW;
rest looks good.
> + switch (packet.code) {
> + case JOIN_DISALLOW:
> + case JOIN_OK_NO_MAP:
> + break;
> + case JOIN_PROTOCOL_MISMATCH:
> + mlog(ML_NOTICE,
> + "This node requested DLM locking protocol %u.%u
> and "
> + "filesystem locking protocol %u.%u. At least one
> of "
> + "the protocol versions on node %d is not
> compatible, "
> + "disconnecting\n",
> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> + node);
> + status = -EPROTO;
> + break;
> + case JOIN_OK:
> + /* Use the same locking protocol as the remote node */
> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.dlm_minor;
> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor = packet.fs_minor;
> + mlog(0,
> + "Node %d responds JOIN_OK with DLM locking
> protocol "
> + "%u.%u and fs locking protocol %u.%u\n",
> + node,
> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_major,
> + dlm->dlm_locking_proto.pv_minor,
> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_major,
> + dlm->fs_locking_proto.pv_minor);
> + break;
> + default:
> + status = -EINVAL;
> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "invalid response %d from node %u\n",
> + packet.code, node);
> + break;
> + }
> }
>
> mlog(0, "status %d, node %d response is %d\n", status, node,
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
