Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Use min() instead of doing it manually

[Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>]

On 2021/12/27 19:34, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> Eliminate following coccicheck warning:
> 
> ./fs/btrfs/volumes.c:7768:13-14: WARNING opportunity for min().
> 
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 730355b55b42..dca3f0cedff9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -7765,7 +7765,7 @@ static int btrfs_device_init_dev_stats(struct btrfs_device *device,
>   			btrfs_dev_stat_set(device, i, 0);
>   		device->dev_stats_valid = 1;
>   		btrfs_release_path(path);
> -		return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> +		return min(ret, 0);

Nope, please don't blindly follow whatever the static checker reports, 
but spend sometime on the code.

In this particular case, min(ret, 0) is not really making the code any 
easier to read.

The "if (ret)" branch means, either we got a critical error (ret < 0) or 
we didn't find the dev status item

For no dev status item case, it's no big deal and we can continue 
returning 0. For fatal error case, it mostly means the device tree is 
corrupted, and we return @ret directly.

Are you really thinking we're calculating a minimal value between 0 and ret?


And I have already stated that, there is no need to CC maintainers.
Especially you didn't even bother to check who is the one pushing the 
code to Linus.

Thanks,
Qu
>   	}
>   	slot = path->slots[0];
>   	eb = path->nodes[0];