2013-03-28 13:53:53

by fanchaoting

Subject: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more

the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more,
mark it to be unused to avoid make warning.

Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <[email protected]>

---
net/sunrpc/cache.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
index 9afa439..efea2d9 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
*cd, struct cache_head *h)
return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
}

-static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
cache_head *h)
+static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *unused, struct
cache_head *h)
{
if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
return -EAGAIN;
-- 1.7.10.4

2013-03-28 14:07:22

by fanchaoting

Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more

the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more.

Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <[email protected]>

---
net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
*cd, struct cache_head *h)
return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
}

-static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
cache_head *h)
+static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h)
{
if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
return -EAGAIN;
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail
*detail, struct cache_head *h
int rv;

write_lock(&detail->hash_lock);
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv != -EAGAIN) {
write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
return rv;
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
long refresh_age, age;

/* First decide return status as best we can */
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);

/* now see if we want to start an upcall */
refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh);
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
* Request was not deferred; handle it as best
* we can ourselves:
*/
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv == -EAGAIN)
rv = -ETIMEDOUT;
}
--
1.7.10.4

2013-03-28 14:19:46

by fanchaoting

Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more

> Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers.

thanks ,here is the change patch.

the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more.

Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <[email protected]>

---
net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
*cd, struct cache_head *h)
return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
}

-static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
cache_head *h)
+static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h)
{
if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
return -EAGAIN;
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail
*detail, struct cache_head *h
int rv;

write_lock(&detail->hash_lock);
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv != -EAGAIN) {
write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
return rv;
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
long refresh_age, age;

/* First decide return status as best we can */
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);

/* now see if we want to start an upcall */
refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh);
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
* Request was not deferred; handle it as best
* we can ourselves:
*/
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv == -EAGAIN)
rv = -ETIMEDOUT;
}
--
1.7.10.4

2013-03-28 13:58:34

by Myklebust, Trond

Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more

On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 21:53 +0800, chaoting fan wrote:
> the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more,
> mark it to be unused to avoid make warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/cache.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> index 9afa439..efea2d9 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
> *cd, struct cache_head *h)
> return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
> }
>
> -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
> cache_head *h)
> +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *unused, struct
> cache_head *h)
> {
> if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
> return -EAGAIN;
> -- 1.7.10.4

Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers.

--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com

2013-05-15 13:48:11

by J. Bruce Fields

Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more

I think this never got applied? Applying for 3.11.--b.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:19:45PM +0800, chaoting fan wrote:
> > Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers.
>
> thanks ,here is the change patch.
>
> the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more.
>
> Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
> *cd, struct cache_head *h)
> return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
> }
>
> -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
> cache_head *h)
> +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h)
> {
> if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
> return -EAGAIN;
> @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail
> *detail, struct cache_head *h
> int rv;
>
> write_lock(&detail->hash_lock);
> - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
> + rv = cache_is_valid(h);
> if (rv != -EAGAIN) {
> write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
> return rv;
> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
> long refresh_age, age;
>
> /* First decide return status as best we can */
> - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
> + rv = cache_is_valid(h);
>
> /* now see if we want to start an upcall */
> refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh);
> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
> * Request was not deferred; handle it as best
> * we can ourselves:
> */
> - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
> + rv = cache_is_valid(h);
> if (rv == -EAGAIN)
> rv = -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
> --
> 1.7.10.4
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html