[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160301234500.829620761@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:50:59 +0000
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 030/130] dentry_kill() doesnt need the second argument now
3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
commit 8cbf74da435d1bd13dbb790f94c7ff67b2fb6af4 upstream.
it's 1 in the only remaining caller.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/dcache.c | 11 ++++-------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -498,8 +498,7 @@ static void __dentry_kill(struct dentry
* If ref is non-zero, then decrement the refcount too.
* Returns dentry requiring refcount drop, or NULL if we're done.
*/
-static struct dentry *
-dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int unlock_on_failure)
+static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
__releases(dentry->d_lock)
{
struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
@@ -521,10 +520,8 @@ dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int u
return parent;
failed:
- if (unlock_on_failure) {
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- cpu_relax();
- }
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ cpu_relax();
return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
}
@@ -616,7 +613,7 @@ repeat:
return;
kill_it:
- dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, 1);
+ dentry = dentry_kill(dentry);
if (dentry)
goto repeat;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists