From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MRQk3-0006J4-GT for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:11:23 +0000 Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6GCw0OC011398 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:58:00 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6GDApOT2580492 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:10:52 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6GDAcQ4007361 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:10:38 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/06] Fix compilation warning for fs/ubifs/commit.c From: Subrata Modak To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1247748885.11353.156.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090716124133.25463.33849.sendpatchset@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> <1247748885.11353.156.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:40:18 +0530 Message-Id: <1247749820.5572.14.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sachin P Sant , LKML , David Howells , Stefan Richter , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Adrian Hunter , Balbir Singh Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 15:54 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 18:11 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > > does not use: > > "const struct ubifs_info *c" > > inside the inline function. I do not see any practical usage of > > "const struct ubifs_info *c" in the functions key_read() and key_write(). > > Is there something which i am missing to understand ? > > > > When i applied the following patch, still the "fs/ubifs/" code compiled fine. > > If the below fix is correct, i can try fixing some other functions i saw > > having similar defects. > > Yeah, I think the reason why we have this extra argument there is that > we assumed there will be several key schemes. It is possible to add more > than one, but we use only one. > > Since you have already spent your time for this, could you please check > if removing this 'c' makes the code smaller? If not, I'd prefer not to Ok. I would let you know soon. Regards-- Subrata > remove it. >