[CRIU] [PATCHv2 3/3] tty: Make unlock_pty() inline void

[Andrei Vagin]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:04:41AM +0000, Radostin Stoyanov wrote:
> On 09/01/2019 07:09, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:53:29AM +0000, Radostin Stoyanov wrote:
> >> The return value of unlock_pty() is not needed because if the unlock
> >> fails then futher operations on locked entry will fail as well.
> >> unlock_pty() will only yield the error message.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1 at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  criu/tty.c | 8 ++------
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/criu/tty.c b/criu/tty.c
> >> index 38e1cab3..fe126f18 100644
> >> --- a/criu/tty.c
> >> +++ b/criu/tty.c
> >> @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static int pty_open_ptmx_index(struct file_desc *d, struct tty_info *info, int f
> >>  					open_tty_reg, d, path_from_reg(d));
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -static int unlock_pty(int fd)
> >> +static void inline unlock_pty(int fd)
> > What is the benefit?
> >
> > An inline function can return int...
> It is just that the return value of unlock_pty() is never being used.

or may be better to start halndling the return value

> Maybe I should change the commit message.
> >
> >>  {
> >>  	const int lock = 0;
> >>  
> >> @@ -664,12 +664,8 @@ static int unlock_pty(int fd)
> >>  	 * by kernel and we need to unlock it to be
> >>  	 * able to connect slave peer.
> >>  	 */
> >> -	if (ioctl(fd, TIOCSPTLCK, &lock)) {
> >> +	if (ioctl(fd, TIOCSPTLCK, &lock))
> >>  		pr_err("Unable to unlock pty device via y%d\n", fd);
> >> -		return -1;
> >> -	}
> >> -
> >> -	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  static int lock_pty(int fd)
> >> -- 
> >> 2.17.2
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CRIU mailing list
> >> CRIU at openvz.org
> >> https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/criu
>