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@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
