linux-kernel - [PATCH] locks: remove unused lm_release

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120801115616.GA3958@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:56:16 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	matthew@....cx
Subject: [PATCH] locks: remove unused lm_release_private

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>

3b6e2723f32de42028617f2c99b244ccd72cd959 "locks: prevent side-effects of
locks_release_private before file_lock is initialized" removed the last
user of lm_release_private without removing the field itself.

Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...hat.com>
---
 Documentation/filesystems/Locking |    2 --
 fs/locks.c                        |    6 +-----
 include/linux/fs.h                |    1 -
 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:54:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Maybe I missed some odd user that somehow avoids the grep, but I don't
> think so. So there is nothing that ever sets it, why the hell does the
> thing still remain at all?

Embarassingly: I had work in progress that could make use of
lm_release_private soon, so I didn't bother removing it.

But "soon" was optimistic, and anyway why leave the code in a confusing
state, so: agreed it should have gone, apologies.

--b.

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
index 8e2da1e..f11d51f 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
@@ -343,7 +343,6 @@ prototypes:
 	int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *);
 	void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *);  /* unblock callback */
 	int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
-	void (*lm_release_private)(struct file_lock *);
 	void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *); /* break_lease callback */
 	int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **, int);
 
@@ -352,7 +351,6 @@ locking rules:
 lm_compare_owner:	yes		no
 lm_notify:		yes		no
 lm_grant:		no		no
-lm_release_private:	maybe		no
 lm_break:		yes		no
 lm_change		yes		no
 
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 541075a..5cf874c 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -200,11 +200,7 @@ void locks_release_private(struct file_lock *fl)
 			fl->fl_ops->fl_release_private(fl);
 		fl->fl_ops = NULL;
 	}
-	if (fl->fl_lmops) {
-		if (fl->fl_lmops->lm_release_private)
-			fl->fl_lmops->lm_release_private(fl);
-		fl->fl_lmops = NULL;
-	}
+	fl->fl_lmops = NULL;
 
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(locks_release_private);
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index a1e7727..9a6ac61 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1154,7 +1154,6 @@ struct lock_manager_operations {
 	int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *);
 	void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *);	/* unblock callback */
 	int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
-	void (*lm_release_private)(struct file_lock *);
 	void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *);
 	int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **, int);
 };
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/