put_last_free() defined, but not used
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 put_last_free() defined, but not used
Hello,
In 2.0.39, the function put_last_free() in fs/file_table.c is defined, but no longer get used. Should it be removed?
thanks
file_table.c 2004-01-26 03:10:38.000000000 +0800 renamed from file_table.c.orig 1994-10-21 07:39:36.000000000 +0800 +0 -0
@@ -52,20 +52,6 @@ prev->f_next = next;
}
-/*
- * Insert a file structure at the end of the list of available ones.
- */
-static inline void put_last_free(struct file *file)
-{
- struct file *next, *prev;
-
- next = first_file; - file->f_next = next; - prev = next->f_prev; - next->f_prev = file; - file->f_prev = prev; - prev->f_next = file;
-}
/*
* Allocate a new memory page for file structures and
Quoted 5 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Hello,
In 2.0.39, the function
put_last_free()infs/file_table.cis defined, but no longer get used.
Should it be removed?
I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Quoted 9 lines · David Weinehall
Quoted 5 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Hello,
In 2.0.39, the function
put_last_free()infs/file_table.cis defined, but no longer get used.
Should it be removed?I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
The function was static.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
Quoted 4 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 3 lines · David Weinehall
Quoted 2 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Hello,
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
In 2.0.39, the function
put_last_free()infs/file_table.cis defined, but no longer get used.
Should it be removed?I might consider this for 2.0.41, not for 2.0.40. Indeed it doesn't seem to be used, but it might be used in some external file system.
The function was static.
Ohhh, failed to spot that. Bummer, since I just uploaded 2.0.40-rc8. Then again, with the quality my -rc's have been of lately, there will probably be a 2.0.40-rc9 anyway. Sigh.
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
[2.0.40-rc8] Works well
In reply to David WeinehallHey David,
I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem running. Great work!
Markus
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Quoted 4 lines · Markus Hästbacka
Hey David,
I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem running. Great work!
Most of the compile-time warning I got was from using a newer binutils, but I'll try to fix all warnings (that are fixable without causing bugs) in 2.0.41.
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
In reply to Markus HästbackaQuoted 8 lines · Markus Hästbacka
Hey David,
I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem running. Great work!Markus
Hello all 2.0 hackers,
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3 on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Coywolf
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Quoted 11 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Quoted 8 lines · Markus Hästbacka
Hey David,
I just mail to tell you that 2.0.40-rc8 seems to work really well, no problems compiling (except a few warnings :) and absolutely no problem running. Great work!Markus
Hello all 2.0 hackers,
There aren't a lot, I suspect you can count us using one hand nowadays...
Quoted 5 lines
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc. It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some degree that no new bugs are introduced.
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Quoted 8 lines · David Weinehall
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
...Quoted 5 lines
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Quoted 5 lines
Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc. It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
only the module-code? :)
Quoted 3 lines
It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some degree that no new bugs are introduced.
That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
Quoted 3 lines
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)
Markus
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Quoted 10 lines · Markus Hästbacka
Quoted 8 lines · David Weinehall
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:30AM +0000, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
...Quoted 5 lines
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any
other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3
on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc. It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
only the module-code? :)
Well, I do remember that I did spend a few weeks getting the 2.0-tree to compile with gcc-3.2, and most problems arose when dealing with the module-code. I think I gave up there.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some degree that no new bugs are introduced.
That would probably be impossible to do without introducing any bugs..
Mmmm.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Sounds great, a bit amazing that 2.0 is alive again :)
Oh, it's not been dead, as much as laying dormant.
Regards: David
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Btw - Are you going to announce the release of 2.0.40 (whenever it's coming) or just put it on kernel.org?
Markus
Re: [2.0.40-rc8] Works well
Quoted 2 lines · Markus Hästbacka
Btw - Are you going to announce the release of 2.0.40 (whenever it's coming) or just put it on kernel.org?
I will announce it. It won't have any differences from 2.0.40-rc8 though (unless someone uncovers a flaw in -rc8 of course, which would cause me to release an -rc9.)
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
about 2.0 cleanup or adaption
In reply to David WeinehallQuoted 11 lines · David Weinehall
Quoted 3 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Recently I just have such an idea that is to port the 2.0.39 to let it be compiled with my gcc 2.95.4 or any other latest gcc. At the same time, also make it remain compliant to gcc 2.7.2.1. ( I can't find 2.7.2.1, only 2.7.2.3 on the ftp) Is this work worth while?
Well, for sure it's quite a demanding task, since, if I remember correctly, the module-code uses some nasty internal gcc-knowledge to generate code, that simply doesn't work with later versions of gcc. It might be that I remember this incorrectly though.
I think the first problem is to adapt the some inline assembly code to new style for the strict clobber list issue in recent gcc. If it is worthwhile, I'd like to do the work.
Quoted 9 lines
It would be interesting, yes, but only if it can be proved to some degree that no new bugs are introduced.
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Regards: David Weinehall
I'm not sure of the defined but never used code. There's a lot. How to deal with them?
Coywolf
Signature · 2 lines
Coywolf Qi Hunt Admin of http://GreatCN.org and http://LoveCN.org
PATCH 1/1 Fix comment error of prepare_binprm() in exec.c
In reply to David WeinehallQuoted 5 lines · David Weinehall
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Regards: David Weinehall
Hello, David
In the comment of prepare_binprm() in fs/exec.c, 512 bytes should be 128 bytes.
Coywolf
Signature · 2 lines
Coywolf Qi Hunt Admin of http://GreatCN.org and http://LoveCN.org
fs/exec.c +1 -1
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@/* * Fill the binprm structure from the inode. -* Check permissions, then read the first 512 bytes +* Check permissions, then read the first 128 bytes */ int prepare_binprm (struct linux_binprm *bprm) {
Re: [PATCH 2.0.40] Fix comment error of prepare_binprm() in exec.c
Quoted 6 lines · Coywolf Qi Hunt
Quoted 4 lines · David Weinehall
My aim for 2.0.41 is to make it a cleanup-release; remove warnings, tidy up a little source-code mess, kill dead code, fix typos etc.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Regards: David Weinehall
Hello, David
In the comment of
prepare_binprm()infs/exec.c, 512 bytes should be 128 bytes.
Thanks.
Regards: David Weinehall
Signature · 3 lines
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/