[PATCHv4 2/3] btrfs: change btrfs_free_reserved_bytes to be void funtion

[zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>]

btrfs_free_reserved_bytes use the variable "ret" for return return value,
but it is not modified after initialzation. Further, I find that any of
the callers do not handle the return value, so it is safe to drop the
unneeded "ret" and make it to be void function.

Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 6 ++----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index f77226d..ff305f5 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -6464,11 +6464,10 @@ static int btrfs_add_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
  * reserve set to 0 in order to clear the reservation.
  */
 
-static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
-				     u64 num_bytes, int delalloc)
+static void btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
+				      u64 num_bytes, int delalloc)
 {
 	struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info;
-	int ret = 0;
 
 	spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
 	spin_lock(&cache->lock);
@@ -6481,7 +6480,6 @@ static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
 		cache->delalloc_bytes -= num_bytes;
 	spin_unlock(&cache->lock);
 	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
-	return ret;
 }
 void btrfs_prepare_extent_commit(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
 {
-- 
1.7.12.4