From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Hills Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Don't require latency_warn_ms from bcache_util.o Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:45:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1315662339-3115-7-git-send-email-mark@pogo.org.uk> References: <1109101110320.2733@stax.localdomain> <1315662339-3115-1-git-send-email-mark@pogo.org.uk> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1315662339-3115-1-git-send-email-mark-UrrBsZIrrsb10XsdtD+oqA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org When building as a module, we can't see this variable. This removes useful debugging; probably some restructuring would be better here. I'm not clear on the responsibilities of bcache.c, vs. bcache_util.c, there seem to be references in both directions. --- block/bcache_util.c | 2 -- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/bcache_util.c b/block/bcache_util.c index b014e8c..11a81c0 100644 --- a/block/bcache_util.c +++ b/block/bcache_util.c @@ -378,8 +378,6 @@ void closure_put(struct closure *c, struct workqueue_struct *wq) bool sleeping; int r; again: - pr_latency(c->wait_time, "%pf", c->fn); - sleeping = test_bit(__CLOSURE_SLEEPING, &c->flags); r = atomic_dec_return(&c->remaining); smp_mb__after_atomic_dec(); -- 1.7.4.4