On Fri, 2019-07-05 at 17:14 +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> ceph_drop_inode() implementation is not any different from the generic
> function, thus there's no point in keeping it around.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ceph/inode.c | 10 ----------
> fs/ceph/super.c | 2 +-
> fs/ceph/super.h | 1 -
> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/inode.c b/fs/ceph/inode.c
> index 761451f36e2d..211140e6ef9c 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/inode.c
> @@ -578,16 +578,6 @@ void ceph_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> ceph_put_string(rcu_dereference_raw(ci->i_layout.pool_ns));
> }
>
> -int ceph_drop_inode(struct inode *inode)
> -{
> - /*
> - * Positve dentry and corresponding inode are always accompanied
> - * in MDS reply. So no need to keep inode in the cache after
> - * dropping all its aliases.
> - */
> - return 1;
> -}
> -
> static inline blkcnt_t calc_inode_blocks(u64 size)
> {
> return (size + (1<<9) - 1) >> 9;
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
> index d57fa60dcd43..b4a4772756cb 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
> @@ -843,7 +843,7 @@ static const struct super_operations ceph_super_ops = {
> .destroy_inode = ceph_destroy_inode,
> .free_inode = ceph_free_inode,
> .write_inode = ceph_write_inode,
> - .drop_inode = ceph_drop_inode,
> + .drop_inode = generic_delete_inode,
> .sync_fs = ceph_sync_fs,
> .put_super = ceph_put_super,
> .remount_fs = ceph_remount,
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.h b/fs/ceph/super.h
> index 5f27e1f7f2d6..622e6c96c960 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/super.h
> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.h
> @@ -878,7 +878,6 @@ extern const struct inode_operations ceph_file_iops;
> extern struct inode *ceph_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb);
> extern void ceph_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode);
> extern void ceph_free_inode(struct inode *inode);
> -extern int ceph_drop_inode(struct inode *inode);
>
> extern struct inode *ceph_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> struct ceph_vino vino);
Merged into ceph-client/testing. We should be able to get this in for
5.3.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
