As new_valid_dev always returns 1, so !new_valid_dev check is not
needed, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiao...@163.com>
---
fs/jfs/namei.c | 3 ---
fs/jfs/super.c | 3 ---
2 files changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jfs/namei.c b/fs/jfs/namei.c
index 35976bd..9d7551f 100644
--- a/fs/jfs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/jfs/namei.c
@@ -1372,9 +1372,6 @@ static int jfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry
*dentry,
tid_t tid;
struct tblock *tblk;
- if (!new_valid_dev(rdev))
- return -EINVAL;
-
jfs_info("jfs_mknod: %pd", dentry);
rc = dquot_initialize(dir);
diff --git a/fs/jfs/super.c b/fs/jfs/super.c
index 4cd9798..8f9176c 100644
--- a/fs/jfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/jfs/super.c
@@ -496,9 +496,6 @@ static int jfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
*data, int silent)
jfs_info("In jfs_read_super: s_flags=0x%lx", sb->s_flags);
- if (!new_valid_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev))
- return -EOVERFLOW;
-
sbi = kzalloc(sizeof(struct jfs_sb_info), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!sbi)
return -ENOMEM;
--
1.9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
Jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
