This patch reverses the semantics of the read fill flag, getting rid of an
extra assignment at allocation time.
Generated from 2.6.11-rc1.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <[email protected]>
diff -uprN -X dontdiff linux-2.6.11-clean/fs/sysfs/file.c linux-2.6.11/fs/sysfs/file.c
--- linux-2.6.11-clean/fs/sysfs/file.c 2004-12-24 13:33:50.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.11/fs/sysfs/file.c 2005-01-21 13:09:21.000000000 -0800
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ struct sysfs_buffer {
char * page;
struct sysfs_ops * ops;
struct semaphore sem;
- int needs_read_fill;
+ int read_filled;
};
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static int fill_read_buffer(struct dentr
return -ENOMEM;
count = ops->show(kobj,attr,buffer->page);
- buffer->needs_read_fill = 0;
+ buffer->read_filled = 1;
BUG_ON(count > (ssize_t)PAGE_SIZE);
if (count >= 0)
buffer->count = count;
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ sysfs_read_file(struct file *file, char
ssize_t retval = 0;
down(&buffer->sem);
- if (buffer->needs_read_fill) {
+ if (!buffer->read_filled) {
if ((retval = fill_read_buffer(file->f_dentry,buffer)))
goto out;
}
@@ -308,7 +307,6 @@ static int check_perm(struct inode * ino
if (buffer) {
memset(buffer,0,sizeof(struct sysfs_buffer));
init_MUTEX(&buffer->sem);
- buffer->needs_read_fill = 1;
buffer->ops = ops;
file->private_data = buffer;
} else
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:55:09PM -0800, Mitch Williams wrote:
> This patch reverses the semantics of the read fill flag, getting rid of an
> extra assignment at allocation time.
>
> Generated from 2.6.11-rc1.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <[email protected]>
Applied, thanks.
greg k-h
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 12:38:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:55:09PM -0800, Mitch Williams wrote:
> > This patch reverses the semantics of the read fill flag, getting rid of an
> > extra assignment at allocation time.
> >
> > Generated from 2.6.11-rc1.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams <[email protected]>
>
> Applied, thanks.
Ick, no. Pulled back out, as it doesn't even compile :(
greg k-h
>On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 12:38:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>Ick, no. Pulled back out, as it doesn't even compile :(
>
Agreed. Ick. Not necessary at all, so please drop this one on the
floor.
-Mitch
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Ick, no. Pulled back out, as it doesn't even compile :(
>
Ick, indeed. Yet another victim of my sneaky attempt to whack one large
patch up into three small patches. Let's just forget this patch ever
existed, since it doesn't add any new functionality and probably shrinks
the running kernel by a good three bytes.
And I'll quit trying to be sneaky.
Thanks again for your help and patience on this stuff.
-Mitch