From 556f3ca88ecb7087e7e3144e429414c60a300984 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: zhong jiang Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 00:37:14 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: change btrfs_free_reserved_bytes to return void btrfs_free_reserved_bytes uses the variable "ret" for return value, but it is not modified after initialzation. Further, I find that any of the callers do not handle the return value, so it is safe to drop the unneeded "ret" and return void. There are no callees that would need the function to handle or pass the value either. Signed-off-by: zhong jiang Reviewed-by: David Sterba [ update changelog ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 241d54e..67b9f67 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -6422,11 +6422,10 @@ static int btrfs_add_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, * reserve set to 0 in order to clear the reservation. */ -static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, - u64 num_bytes, int delalloc) +static void btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, + u64 num_bytes, int delalloc) { struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info; - int ret = 0; spin_lock(&space_info->lock); spin_lock(&cache->lock); @@ -6439,7 +6438,6 @@ static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, cache->delalloc_bytes -= num_bytes; spin_unlock(&cache->lock); spin_unlock(&space_info->lock); - return ret; } void btrfs_prepare_extent_commit(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) { -- 2.7.4