[09/17] fs/hpfs: remove unnecessary new_valid_dev check
diff mbox

Message ID 1443449479-5379-1-git-send-email-bywxiaobai@163.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Yaowei Bai Sept. 28, 2015, 2:11 p.m. UTC
As new_valid_dev always returns 1, so !new_valid_dev check is not
needed, remove it.

Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@163.com>
---
 fs/hpfs/namei.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Mikulas Patocka Sept. 29, 2015, 3:03 p.m. UTC | #1
Hi

I suppose that you should remove the function new_valid_dev at all.

Mikulas


On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Yaowei Bai wrote:

> As new_valid_dev always returns 1, so !new_valid_dev check is not
> needed, remove it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@163.com>
> ---
>  fs/hpfs/namei.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/hpfs/namei.c b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> index 9e92c9c..ae4d5a1 100644
> --- a/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> @@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ static int hpfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode, de
>  	int err;
>  	if ((err = hpfs_chk_name(name, &len))) return err==-ENOENT ? -EINVAL : err;
>  	if (hpfs_sb(dir->i_sb)->sb_eas < 2) return -EPERM;
> -	if (!new_valid_dev(rdev))
> -		return -EINVAL;
>  	hpfs_lock(dir->i_sb);
>  	err = -ENOSPC;
>  	fnode = hpfs_alloc_fnode(dir->i_sb, hpfs_i(dir)->i_dno, &fno, &bh);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Yaowei Bai Sept. 30, 2015, 11:13 a.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:03:24PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I suppose that you should remove the function new_valid_dev at all.

Yes, i thought about that, but actually there's still a user of
new_valid_dev in fs/stat.c:

	#define valid_dev(x)  choose_32_64(old_valid_dev,new_valid_dev)(x)

so i just left new_valid_dev untouched and removed other users in fs first.

> 
> Mikulas
> 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Yaowei Bai wrote:
> 
> > As new_valid_dev always returns 1, so !new_valid_dev check is not
> > needed, remove it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@163.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/hpfs/namei.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/hpfs/namei.c b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> > index 9e92c9c..ae4d5a1 100644
> > --- a/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
> > @@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ static int hpfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode, de
> >  	int err;
> >  	if ((err = hpfs_chk_name(name, &len))) return err==-ENOENT ? -EINVAL : err;
> >  	if (hpfs_sb(dir->i_sb)->sb_eas < 2) return -EPERM;
> > -	if (!new_valid_dev(rdev))
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> >  	hpfs_lock(dir->i_sb);
> >  	err = -ENOSPC;
> >  	fnode = hpfs_alloc_fnode(dir->i_sb, hpfs_i(dir)->i_dno, &fno, &bh);
> > -- 
> > 1.9.1
> > 
> > 
> > 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mikulas Patocka Oct. 1, 2015, 8:49 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Yaowei Bai wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:03:24PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I suppose that you should remove the function new_valid_dev at all.
> 
> Yes, i thought about that, but actually there's still a user of
> new_valid_dev in fs/stat.c:
> 
> 	#define valid_dev(x)  choose_32_64(old_valid_dev,new_valid_dev)(x)
> 
> so i just left new_valid_dev untouched and removed other users in fs first.

So, remove that too - change it to choose_32_64(old_valid_dev(x),true)

If you remove most calls for the function new_valid_dev, the function is 
meaningless and shouldn't be present in the source code.

Mikulas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Yaowei Bai Oct. 8, 2015, 12:22 p.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:49:41PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Yaowei Bai wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:03:24PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > I suppose that you should remove the function new_valid_dev at all.
> > 
> > Yes, i thought about that, but actually there's still a user of
> > new_valid_dev in fs/stat.c:
> > 
> > 	#define valid_dev(x)  choose_32_64(old_valid_dev,new_valid_dev)(x)
> > 
> > so i just left new_valid_dev untouched and removed other users in fs first.
> 
> So, remove that too - change it to choose_32_64(old_valid_dev(x),true)
> 
> If you remove most calls for the function new_valid_dev, the function is 
> meaningless and shouldn't be present in the source code.

Sorry for delay reply. OK, i will follow your advice and send another patch to
remove it once this patchset's taken by vfs or mm tree. Thanks for reviewing.

Yaowei

> 
> Mikulas

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/fs/hpfs/namei.c b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
index 9e92c9c..ae4d5a1 100644
--- a/fs/hpfs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/hpfs/namei.c
@@ -227,8 +227,6 @@  static int hpfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode, de
 	int err;
 	if ((err = hpfs_chk_name(name, &len))) return err==-ENOENT ? -EINVAL : err;
 	if (hpfs_sb(dir->i_sb)->sb_eas < 2) return -EPERM;
-	if (!new_valid_dev(rdev))
-		return -EINVAL;
 	hpfs_lock(dir->i_sb);
 	err = -ENOSPC;
 	fnode = hpfs_alloc_fnode(dir->i_sb, hpfs_i(dir)->i_dno, &fno, &bh);