[Devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 05/15] IPC/semaphores: remove one unused parameter from semctl_down()

[Nadia Derbey]

Pierre Peiffer wrote:
> 
> Nadia Derbey wrote:
> 
>>pierre.peiffer at bull.net wrote:
>>
>>>From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer at bull.net>
>>>
>>>semctl_down() takes one unused parameter: semnum.
>>>This patch proposes to get rid of it.
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer at bull.net>
>>>Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue at us.ibm.com>
>>>---
>>> ipc/sem.c |    6 +++---
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>Index: b/ipc/sem.c
>>>===================================================================
>>>--- a/ipc/sem.c
>>>+++ b/ipc/sem.c
>>>@@ -882,8 +882,8 @@ static inline unsigned long copy_semid_f
>>>  * to be held in write mode.
>>>  * NOTE: no locks must be held, the rw_mutex is taken inside this
>>>function.
>>>  */
>>>-static int semctl_down(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid, int semnum,
>>>-        int cmd, int version, union semun arg)
>>>+static int semctl_down(struct ipc_namespace *ns, int semid,
>>>+               int cmd, int version, union semun arg)
>>> {
>>>     struct sem_array *sma;
>>>     int err;
>>>@@ -974,7 +974,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_semctl (int semid, i
>>>         return err;
>>>     case IPC_RMID:
>>>     case IPC_SET:
>>>-        err = semctl_down(ns,semid,semnum,cmd,version,arg);
>>>+        err = semctl_down(ns, semid, cmd, version, arg);
>>>         return err;
>>>     default:
>>>         return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>
>>Looks like semnum is only used in semctl_main(). Why not removing it
>>from semctl_nolock() too?
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> In fact, I already fixed that in a previous patch, included in -mm since kernel
> 2.6.24.rc3-mm2 (patch named ipc-semaphores-consolidate-sem_stat-and.patch)
> 

Oops.. Sorry for the "noise"!
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers