Hi I suppose that you should remove the function new_valid_dev at all.
Mikulas On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Yaowei Bai wrote: > As new_valid_dev always returns 1, so !new_valid_dev check is not > needed, remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiao...@163.com> > --- > fs/hpfs/namei.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/hpfs/namei.c b/fs/hpfs/namei.c > index 9e92c9c..ae4d5a1 100644 > --- a/fs/hpfs/namei.c > +++ b/fs/hpfs/namei.c > @@ -227,8 +227,6 @@ static int hpfs_mknod(struct inode *dir, struct dentry > *dentry, umode_t mode, de > int err; > if ((err = hpfs_chk_name(name, &len))) return err==-ENOENT ? -EINVAL : > err; > if (hpfs_sb(dir->i_sb)->sb_eas < 2) return -EPERM; > - if (!new_valid_dev(rdev)) > - return -EINVAL; > hpfs_lock(dir->i_sb); > err = -ENOSPC; > fnode = hpfs_alloc_fnode(dir->i_sb, hpfs_i(dir)->i_dno, &fno, &bh); > -- > 1.9.1 > > > -- 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/
