Hi Nick,
I'm not quite sure about if it is a correct modification. But,
On 2015/1/16 10:18, nick wrote:
> drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c:336:12: warning: ‘check_free_sectors’ defined but
> not used [-Wunused-function]
check if this function is still called by other functions, if it
is not, just remove it in your patch.
> static int check_free_sectors(struct INFTLrecord *inftl, unsigned int
> address,
> ^
> drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c: In function ‘INFTL_formatblock’:
> drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c:781:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void
> function [-Wreturn-type]
> }
> Patch:
> From 6b481c8f5030da2e9616bd038193d68340c0b5d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> 2 From: Nicholas Krause <xerofo...@gmail.com>
> 3 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:10:37 -0500
> 4 Subject: [PATCH] mtd: Remove unneeded call to check_free_sectors in the
> 5 function,INFTL_formatblock
> 6
> 7 Removes unneeded call to check_free_sectors internally in the
> function,INFTL_formatblock.
> 8 This call is no longer needed due to us checking to see if erasing the
> block against the
> 9 structure pointer passed to the function,inftl internal variable state is
> equal to the
> 10 macro,MTD_ERASE_FAILED to see if the block has failed in being erased
> successfully.Due
> 11 to this we can remove the no longer needed check to check_free_sectors
> and comments
> 12 related to questioning the reason for it's use with the check against
> MTD_ERASE_FAILED
> 13 for inftl's state variable already checking for successfully erasing of
> the mtd block.
> 14
> 15 Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofo...@gmail.com>
> 16 ---
> 17 drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c | 10 ----------
> 18 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
> 19
> 20 diff --git a/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c b/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
> 21 index 1388c8d..def5cea 100644
> 22 --- a/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
> 23 +++ b/drivers/mtd/inftlmount.c
> 24 @@ -367,7 +367,6 @@ static int check_free_sectors(struct INFTLrecord
> *inftl, unsigned int address,
> 25 *
> 26 * Return: 0 when succeed, -1 on error.
> 27 *
> 28 - * ToDo: 1. Is it necessary to check_free_sector after erasing ??
> 29 */
> 30 int INFTL_formatblock(struct INFTLrecord *inftl, int block)
> 31 {
> 32 @@ -401,15 +400,6 @@ int INFTL_formatblock(struct INFTLrecord *inftl, int
> block)
> 33 goto fail;
> 34 }
> 35
> 36 - /*
> 37 - * Check the "freeness" of Erase Unit before updating
> metadata.
> 38 - * FixMe: is this check really necessary? Since we have
> check
> 39 - * the return code after the erase operation.
> 40 - */
> 41 - if (check_free_sectors(inftl, instr->addr, instr->len, 1)
> != 0)
> 42 - goto fail;
> 43 - }
You should keep this '}'.
> 44 -
> 45 uci.EraseMark = cpu_to_le16(ERASE_MARK);
> 46 uci.EraseMark1 = cpu_to_le16(ERASE_MARK);
> 47 uci.Reserved[0] = 0;
> 48 --
> 49 2.1.0
> 50
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
