[PATCH 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock()

From: NeilBrown
Date: Sun Oct 22 2017 - 20:55:15 EST


it is only ever set to '1', so we can just assume that and remove the code.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c | 15 ++-------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
index cb826e9e840e..f719dc05e1ea 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
@@ -121,15 +121,9 @@ ldlm_flock_destroy(struct ldlm_lock *lock, enum ldlm_mode mode, __u64 flags)
* It is also responsible for splitting a lock if a portion of the lock
* is released.
*
- * If \a first_enq is 0 (ie, called from ldlm_reprocess_queue):
- * - blocking ASTs have already been sent
- *
- * If \a first_enq is 1 (ie, called from ldlm_lock_enqueue):
- * - blocking ASTs have not been sent yet, so list of conflicting locks
- * would be collected and ASTs sent.
*/
static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
- int first_enq, enum ldlm_error *err,
+ enum ldlm_error *err,
struct list_head *work_list)
{
struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
@@ -197,11 +191,6 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
if (!ldlm_flocks_overlap(lock, req))
continue;

- if (!first_enq) {
- reprocess_failed = 1;
- continue;
- }
-
if (*flags & LDLM_FL_BLOCK_NOWAIT) {
ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
*err = -EAGAIN;
@@ -605,7 +594,7 @@ ldlm_flock_completion_ast(struct ldlm_lock *lock, __u64 flags, void *data)
/* We need to reprocess the lock to do merges or splits
* with existing locks owned by this process.
*/
- ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, 1, &err, NULL);
+ ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, &err, NULL);
}
unlock_res_and_lock(lock);
return rc;