The patch titled
Subject: fs/block_dev.c: no need to check inode->i_bdev in bd_forget()
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
fs-block_devc-need-not-to-check-inode-i_bdev-in-bd_forget.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Yan Hong <clouds.yan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: fs/block_dev.c: no need to check inode->i_bdev in bd_forget()
Its only caller evict() has promised a non-NULL inode->i_bdev.
Signed-off-by: Yan Hong <clouds.yan@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/block_dev.c | 8 +++-----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/block_dev.c~fs-block_devc-need-not-to-check-inode-i_bdev-in-bd_forget fs/block_dev.c
--- a/fs/block_dev.c~fs-block_devc-need-not-to-check-inode-i_bdev-in-bd_forget
+++ a/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -617,11 +617,9 @@ void bd_forget(struct inode *inode)
struct block_device *bdev = NULL;
spin_lock(&bdev_lock);
- if (inode->i_bdev) {
- if (!sb_is_blkdev_sb(inode->i_sb))
- bdev = inode->i_bdev;
- __bd_forget(inode);
- }
+ if (!sb_is_blkdev_sb(inode->i_sb))
+ bdev = inode->i_bdev;
+ __bd_forget(inode);
spin_unlock(&bdev_lock);
if (bdev)
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from clouds.yan@xxxxxxxxx are
origin.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
