Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | zhong jiang <> | Subject | [PATCHv4 2/3] btrfs: change btrfs_free_reserved_bytes to be void funtion | Date | Fri, 17 Aug 2018 00:37:14 +0800 |
| |
btrfs_free_reserved_bytes use the variable "ret" for return return value, but it is not modified after initialzation. Further, I find that any of the callers do not handle the return value, so it is safe to drop the unneeded "ret" and make it to be void function.
Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index f77226d..ff305f5 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -6464,11 +6464,10 @@ static int btrfs_add_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, * reserve set to 0 in order to clear the reservation. */ -static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, - u64 num_bytes, int delalloc) +static void btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, + u64 num_bytes, int delalloc) { struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info; - int ret = 0; spin_lock(&space_info->lock); spin_lock(&cache->lock); @@ -6481,7 +6480,6 @@ static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, cache->delalloc_bytes -= num_bytes; spin_unlock(&cache->lock); spin_unlock(&space_info->lock); - return ret; } void btrfs_prepare_extent_commit(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) { -- 1.7.12.4
| |