[PATCH] ext4: remove unused ac_ex_scanned

[PATCH] ext4: remove unused ac_ex_scanned

[Eric Sandeen]

When looking at a bug report with:

> kernel: EXT4-fs: 0 scanned, 0 found

I thought wow, 0 scanned, that's odd?  But it's not odd; it's printing
a variable that is initialized to 0 and never touched again.

It's never been used since the original merge, so I don't really even
know what the original intent was, either.

If anyone knows how to hook it up, speak now via patch, otherwise just
yank it so it's not making a confusing situation more confusing in
kernel logs.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---

diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 4bbbf13..3aee266 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -3983,8 +3983,7 @@ static void ext4_mb_show_ac(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
 			(unsigned long)ac->ac_b_ex.fe_len,
 			(unsigned long)ac->ac_b_ex.fe_logical,
 			(int)ac->ac_criteria);
-	ext4_msg(ac->ac_sb, KERN_ERR, "%lu scanned, %d found",
-		 ac->ac_ex_scanned, ac->ac_found);
+	ext4_msg(ac->ac_sb, KERN_ERR, "%d found", ac->ac_found);
 	ext4_msg(ac->ac_sb, KERN_ERR, "groups: ");
 	ngroups = ext4_get_groups_count(sb);
 	for (i = 0; i < ngroups; i++) {
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.h b/fs/ext4/mballoc.h
index 08481ee..72db0a0 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.h
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.h
@@ -175,8 +175,6 @@ struct ext4_allocation_context {
 	/* copy of the best found extent taken before preallocation efforts */
 	struct ext4_free_extent ac_f_ex;
 
-	/* number of iterations done. we have to track to limit searching */
-	unsigned long ac_ex_scanned;
 	__u16 ac_groups_scanned;
 	__u16 ac_found;
 	__u16 ac_tail;

Re: [PATCH] ext4: remove unused ac_ex_scanned

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 06:14:03PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> When looking at a bug report with:
> 
> > kernel: EXT4-fs: 0 scanned, 0 found
> 
> I thought wow, 0 scanned, that's odd?  But it's not odd; it's printing
> a variable that is initialized to 0 and never touched again.
> 
> It's never been used since the original merge, so I don't really even
> know what the original intent was, either.
> 
> If anyone knows how to hook it up, speak now via patch, otherwise just
> yank it so it's not making a confusing situation more confusing in
> kernel logs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Sorry for losing track of this patch.  Since Andreas was sitting next
to me at FAST, when I was going through the patchwork backlog, I
conferred with him, and he agreed that we should just nuke
ac_ex_scanned as you proposed.

Thanks, applied.

						- Ted