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

Pierre Peiffer pierre.peiffer at bull.net
Thu Jan 31 02:18:30 PST 2008



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)

-- 
Pierre


More information about the Containers mailing list