On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:37:58PM -0700, Ethan Hansen wrote:
> The function hlist_bl_del_init_rcu is declared in rculist_bl.h,
> but never used. Remove hlist_bl_del_init_rcu to clean code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ethan Hansen <1ethanhansen@xxxxxxxxx>
Queued, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> include/linux/rculist_bl.h | 28 ----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rculist_bl.h b/include/linux/rculist_bl.h
> index 66e73ec..0b952d0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rculist_bl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rculist_bl.h
> @@ -25,34 +25,6 @@ static inline struct hlist_bl_node *hlist_bl_first_rcu(struct hlist_bl_head *h)
> }
>
> /**
> - * hlist_bl_del_init_rcu - deletes entry from hash list with re-initialization
> - * @n: the element to delete from the hash list.
> - *
> - * Note: hlist_bl_unhashed() on the node returns true after this. It is
> - * useful for RCU based read lockfree traversal if the writer side
> - * must know if the list entry is still hashed or already unhashed.
> - *
> - * In particular, it means that we can not poison the forward pointers
> - * that may still be used for walking the hash list and we can only
> - * zero the pprev pointer so list_unhashed() will return true after
> - * this.
> - *
> - * The caller must take whatever precautions are necessary (such as
> - * holding appropriate locks) to avoid racing with another
> - * list-mutation primitive, such as hlist_bl_add_head_rcu() or
> - * hlist_bl_del_rcu(), running on this same list. However, it is
> - * perfectly legal to run concurrently with the _rcu list-traversal
> - * primitives, such as hlist_bl_for_each_entry_rcu().
> - */
> -static inline void hlist_bl_del_init_rcu(struct hlist_bl_node *n)
> -{
> - if (!hlist_bl_unhashed(n)) {
> - __hlist_bl_del(n);
> - n->pprev = NULL;
> - }
> -}
> -
> -/**
> * hlist_bl_del_rcu - deletes entry from hash list without re-initialization
> * @n: the element to delete from the hash list.
> *
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
