Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>
>> Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
>> formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
>>
>
> On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same
Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
so
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
> formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
so let's leave it as it is.
> - to_nodeid =
Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>
>> The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
>> create_message, right?
>> Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
>> about the failure
>> path,
Hi David,
David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
create_message, right?
Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
about the failure
path, and it also
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:47:28PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
Do you consider take the following clean up? If yes, I will send a
formal patch, otherwise pls ignore it.
On first glance, the old and new code do not appear to do the same thing,
so let's leave it as it is.
- to_nodeid =
Bob Peterson wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>
>
>
>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang
>> ---
>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
>>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
> create_message, right?
> Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
> about the failure
> path, and it also doesn't change the original
- Original Message -
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
> >> Hi Bob,
> >>
> >> Bob Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>>
> >>>
> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>
>
- Original Message -
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:10:44AM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
The remove_from_waiters could only be invoked after failed to
create_message, right?
Since send_message always returns 0, this patch doesn't touch anything
about the failure
path, and it also doesn't change the original semantic.
Bob Peterson wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Bob Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>>
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang
---
fs/dlm/lock.c |
- Original Message -
> Hi Bob,
>
> Bob Peterson wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
> >> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang
> >> ---
> >> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang
>> ---
>> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git
- Original Message -
> We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang
> ---
> fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> index
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c
- Original Message -
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi Bob,
Bob Peterson wrote:
- Original Message -
We don't need the redundant logic since send_message always returns 0.
Signed-off-by: Guoqing Jiang gqji...@suse.com
---
fs/dlm/lock.c | 10 ++
1 file
20 matches
Mail list logo
