From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominique Martinet Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] net: trans_rdma: remove unused function Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:48:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20130725064802.GA12569@nautica> References: <1374497956-32104-1-git-send-email-andi@etezian.org> <20130724.154646.2283898956674234778.davem@davemloft.net> <1374707387.29835.23.camel@x61.thuisdomein> <20130724.164514.393667021861625699.davem@davemloft.net> <20130725061411.GA8579@nautica> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: pebolle@tiscali.nl, lucho@ionkov.net, ericvh@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@etezian.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, rminnich@sandia.gov To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130725061411.GA8579@nautica> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hard morning, sorry for the double mail. Dominique Martinet wrote on Thu, Jul 25, 2013 : > Well, I do care - but I couldn't find where the trans->cancelled member > function was supposed to be called anyway... > So adding it to the struct and fixing the warning is well and fine, but > if it's still never called in the end I don't see much point and there's > nothing to test. To be more precise, there's a single call to c->trans_mode->cancelled in net/9p/client.c, in p9_client_flush, which is called on subfunction returning -ERESTARTSYS... which never happens as far as I could see. This will be useful once/if we start working on client recovery, though - so the function in itself definitely does interest me, and I guess that thinking about I would have preferred to have the hook added rather than the function removed. But there definitely is no hurry to add this cancelled function till then. Regards, -- Dominique Martinet