disk: tweak ensure{Btrfs,LVM}() to be more linear #1073
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove "Stale" label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days. |
|
This PR was closed because it has been stalled for 30+7 days with no activity. |
Tiny drive-by commit to make `ensure{Btrfs,LVM}()` more linear to read.
I.e. avoid nested if/else when returning and do error checks early.
mvo5
force-pushed
the
btrfs-more-linear
branch
from
c96153d to
350e786
Compare
|
Had to rebase to fix conflicts, sorry |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Tiny drive-by commit to make
ensure{Btrfs,LVM}()more linear to read. I.e. avoid nested if/else when returning and do error checks early.Best viewed side-by-side as the diff makes it hard to follow.
[edit: moved to draft as I have not inspected how much testing this function has, I'm pretty confident in the change but would really like to double check the test situation as well]
[edit2: played around a bit more with the tests and it seems it's well covered so moving out of draft again]