[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18F4A875-0EF0-4566-BF2D-344B3617C83E@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 07:58:21 +0000
From: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC: "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"<HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>" <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>,
"<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lustre: question about lov_request.c
On Jun 8, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> You are right, set_pga seems to be a dead member. It was alive a once, but somehow not fully removed now,
>> so it's safe to drop the whole if and also the struct member itself.
>> set_oabufs could be dropped as well.
>
> Looking further, in the same function I also don't see any other uses of
> the tested field in:
>
> if (req->rq_oi.oi_md)
> OBD_FREE_LARGE(req->rq_oi.oi_md, req->rq_buflen);
>
> if (set->set_lockh)
> lov_llh_put(set->set_lockh);
>
> Can these be dropped as well?
Yes, these two seems to be on their way out too, so please feel free to remove them.
Thanks.
Bye,
Oleg--
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