locks: get rid of WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW dead code
As Bruce points out, there's no compelling reason to change /proc/locks output at this point. If we did want to do this, then we'd almost certainly want to introduce a new file to display this info (maybe via debugfs?). Let's remove the dead WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW ifdef here and just plan to stay with the legacy format. Reported-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
cae80b305e
commit
3648888e90
|
@ -2565,15 +2565,10 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
|
|||
: (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (inode) {
|
||||
#ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW
|
||||
seq_printf(f, "%d %s:%ld ", fl_pid,
|
||||
inode->i_sb->s_id, inode->i_ino);
|
||||
#else
|
||||
/* userspace relies on this representation of dev_t ;-( */
|
||||
/* userspace relies on this representation of dev_t */
|
||||
seq_printf(f, "%d %02x:%02x:%ld ", fl_pid,
|
||||
MAJOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev),
|
||||
MINOR(inode->i_sb->s_dev), inode->i_ino);
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
seq_printf(f, "%d <none>:0 ", fl_pid);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue