On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, William A. (Andy) Adamson
<androsadamson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:33 PM, <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> áfs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | á 11 ++++++++---
>>> á1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> index 9c50be7..fb22cbf 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_open(struct nfs4_opendata *data)
>>> á á á áreturn 0;
>>> á}
>>>
>>> -int nfs4_recover_expired_lease(struct nfs_client *clp)
>>> +static int nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease(struct nfs_client *clp)
>>> á{
>>> á á á áunsigned int loop;
>>> á á á áint ret;
>>> @@ -1593,6 +1593,11 @@ int nfs4_recover_expired_lease(struct nfs_client *clp)
>>> á}
>>> áEXPORT_SYMBOL(nfs4_recover_expired_lease);
>>>
>>> +static int nfs4_recover_expired_lease(struct nfs_server *server)
>>> +{
>>> + á á á return nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease(server->nfs_client);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Why are we doing this extra indirection?
>
> As Trond pointed out, it is a lot less intrusive to the existing code.
>
> -->Andy
>
I must be missing something. What I see is that you are changing the
arguments to a function that is called exactly twice, and creating a
totally unnecessary subfunction nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease.
How is this less intrusive than just directly inlining
nfs4_client_recover_expired_lease?
Fred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
