[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271415499.2075.19.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:58:19 +0100
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH RFC] buffer_head: remove redundant test from wait_on_buffer
The comment suggests that when b_count equals zero it is calling
__wait_no_buffer to trigger some debug, but as there is no debug in
__wait_on_buffer the whole thing is redundant.
AFAICT from the git log this has been the case for at least 5 years, so
it seems safe just to remove this.
Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
---
This patch against 2.6.34-rc4
compiled & tested on x86_64
regards
Richard
diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
index 16ed028..4c62dd4 100644
--- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h
+++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
@@ -305,15 +305,10 @@ map_bh(struct buffer_head *bh, struct super_block *sb, sector_t block)
bh->b_size = sb->s_blocksize;
}
-/*
- * Calling wait_on_buffer() for a zero-ref buffer is illegal, so we call into
- * __wait_on_buffer() just to trip a debug check. Because debug code in inline
- * functions is bloaty.
- */
static inline void wait_on_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
{
might_sleep();
- if (buffer_locked(bh) || atomic_read(&bh->b_count) == 0)
+ if (buffer_locked(bh))
__wait_on_buffer(bh);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists