On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 01:07:05PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> From: "John L. Hammond" <john.hamm...@intel.com>
>
> In llite remove unused declarations, parameters, types, and unused,
> get-only, or set-only structure members. Add static and const
> qualifiers to declarations where possible.
>
> Signed-off-by: John L. Hammond <john.hamm...@intel.com>
> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/9767
> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-2675
> Reviewed-by: Lai Siyao <lai.si...@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jinshan Xiong <jinshan.xi...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.dro...@intel.com>
This is a random grab bag of changes to lots of files. One thing per
patch, etc, next time.
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> index 8b55080..7d520d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> @@ -69,8 +69,7 @@ static void ll_release(struct dentry *de)
> ll_intent_release(lld->lld_it);
> OBD_FREE(lld->lld_it, sizeof(*lld->lld_it));
> }
> - LASSERT(lld->lld_cwd_count == 0);
> - LASSERT(lld->lld_mnt_count == 0);
> +
I'm totally in favour of removing LASSERT() calls... But is this a
"set only" struct member? It's totally unclear from the patch
description.
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> index 51c5327..1b47774 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> @@ -1230,9 +1230,7 @@ do_it:
> */
> ll_release_page(page, le32_to_cpu(dp->ldp_flags) &
> LDF_COLLIDE);
> - sai->sai_in_readpage = 1;
> page = ll_get_dir_page(dir, pos, &chain);
> - sai->sai_in_readpage = 0;
> } else {
> LASSERT(le32_to_cpu(dp->ldp_flags) & LDF_COLLIDE);
> ll_release_page(page, 1);
> @@ -1563,12 +1561,6 @@ int do_statahead_enter(struct inode *dir, struct
> dentry **dentryp,
> return entry ? 1 : -EAGAIN;
> }
>
> - /* if statahead is busy in readdir, help it do post-work */
> - while (!ll_sa_entry_stated(entry) &&
> - sai->sai_in_readpage &&
> - !sa_received_empty(sai))
> - ll_post_statahead(sai);
> -
> if (!ll_sa_entry_stated(entry)) {
> sai->sai_index_wait = entry->se_index;
> lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTR(cfs_time_seconds(30), NULL,
What is this change about really? I've already waded through 1271 lines
of random changes at this point and now I have to figure out what
ll_post_statahead() does and why we don't need to call it now?
Anyways, please explain this change.
Btw, it's very easy to break up a patch into separate patches. Use
git citool. Highlight the lines of code which make things static.
Right click and select "Add highlighted lines to commit." This patch
has three Reviewed-by tags so you guys need to be pushing back on this
kind of stuff, it's obviously outside of the "one thing per patch" rule.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
