> Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers.
thanks ,here is the change patch.
the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more.
Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail
*cd, struct cache_head *h)
return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h);
}
-static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct
cache_head *h)
+static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h)
{
if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags))
return -EAGAIN;
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail
*detail, struct cache_head *h
int rv;
write_lock(&detail->hash_lock);
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv != -EAGAIN) {
write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
return rv;
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
long refresh_age, age;
/* First decide return status as best we can */
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
/* now see if we want to start an upcall */
refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh);
@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail,
* Request was not deferred; handle it as best
* we can ourselves:
*/
- rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h);
+ rv = cache_is_valid(h);
if (rv == -EAGAIN)
rv = -ETIMEDOUT;
}
--
1.7.10.4
--
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
