From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:33266 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753640AbcERTae (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 15:30:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:30:20 -0600 From: Vishal Verma To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Toshi Kani , hch@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, micah.parrish@hpe.com, axboe@fb.com, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, sfr@canb.auug.org.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove unused blkdev_dax_capable() function Message-ID: <20160518193020.GB20021@omniknight.lm.intel.com> References: <1462897437-16626-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <1462897437-16626-7-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <3280835.MNk2ItMooy@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3280835.MNk2ItMooy@wuerfel> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The change from blkdev_dax_capable() to bdev_dax_capable() removed the only user > of the former, so we now get a build warning: > > fs/block_dev.c:1244:13: error: 'blkdev_dax_capable' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] > static bool blkdev_dax_capable(struct block_device *bdev) > > This removes the now-unused function. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > Fixes: a8078b1fc616 ("block: Update blkdev_dax_capable() for consistency") > --- > On Tuesday 10 May 2016 10:23:57 Toshi Kani wrote: > > @@ -1295,7 +1330,7 @@ static int __blkdev_get(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode, int for_part) > > > > if (!ret) { > > bd_set_size(bdev,(loff_t)get_capacity(disk)<<9); > > - if (!blkdev_dax_capable(bdev)) > > + if (!bdev_dax_capable(bdev)) > > bdev->bd_inode->i_flags &= ~S_DAX; > > > > It's not entirely from the patch description what the intention was here > in keeping two slightly different implementations of the same function > in one file, my best guess is that it was not intentional and we should > just remove this. > Good catch - like Toshi said, this was indeed a mis-merge. Stephen, for reference, I've added a branch with the expected conflict resolution at: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/nvdimm/nvdimm.git/ libnvdimm-for-4.7-merge Thanks, -Vishal