ext2: do not register write_super within VFS

From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>

Jan Kara removed 'sb->s_dirt' VFS flag references, so we do not need to
register the ext2 'ext2_write_super()' method in the VFS superblock operations,
because 'sb->s_dirt' won't be ever set to 1 and VFS won't ever call
'->write_super()' anyway. Thus, remove the method.

Tested using xfstests.

Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
---
 fs/ext2/super.c |    1 -
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

On Tue 03-04-12 12:49:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Jan Kara removed 'sb->s_dirt' VFS flag references, so we do not need to
> register the ext2 'ext2_write_super()' method in the VFS superblock operations,
> because 'sb->s_dirt' won't be ever set to 1 and VFS won't ever call
> '->write_super()' anyway. Thus, remove the method.
> 
> Tested using xfstests.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
  Thanks. Added to my tree.

									Honza

> ---
>  fs/ext2/super.c |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c
> index a43f9ad..e0e8f45 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/super.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,6 @@ static const struct super_operations ext2_sops = {
>  	.write_inode	= ext2_write_inode,
>  	.evict_inode	= ext2_evict_inode,
>  	.put_super	= ext2_put_super,
> -	.write_super	= ext2_write_super,
>  	.sync_fs	= ext2_sync_fs,
>  	.statfs		= ext2_statfs,
>  	.remount_fs	= ext2_remount,
> -- 
> 1.7.7.6
>

On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 00:36 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 03-04-12 12:49:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Jan Kara removed 'sb->s_dirt' VFS flag references, so we do not need to
> > register the ext2 'ext2_write_super()' method in the VFS superblock operations,
> > because 'sb->s_dirt' won't be ever set to 1 and VFS won't ever call
> > '->write_super()' anyway. Thus, remove the method.
> > 
> > Tested using xfstests.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
>   Thanks. Added to my tree.

Jan, I do not see this patch in 'for_next' of your tree.

On Wed 11-04-12 14:24:34, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 00:36 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 03-04-12 12:49:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Jan Kara removed 'sb->s_dirt' VFS flag references, so we do not need to
> > > register the ext2 'ext2_write_super()' method in the VFS superblock operations,
> > > because 'sb->s_dirt' won't be ever set to 1 and VFS won't ever call
> > > '->write_super()' anyway. Thus, remove the method.
> > > 
> > > Tested using xfstests.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> >   Thanks. Added to my tree.
> 
> Jan, I do not see this patch in 'for_next' of your tree.
  Yeah, it's not. So far it was in my for_next_testing and for_testing
branches. Once the branch (for_testing) passes some compile tests (done)
and runtime tests with xfstests I will update for_next branch to include
the patch as well. Because merge window is far, I don't hurry with that
very much. But if it causes problems for you I can run the tests and update
for_next tonight or tomorrow.
								Honza

On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 17:30 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Yeah, it's not. So far it was in my for_next_testing and for_testing
> branches. Once the branch (for_testing) passes some compile tests (done)
> and runtime tests with xfstests I will update for_next branch to include
> the patch as well. Because merge window is far, I don't hurry with that
> very much. But if it causes problems for you I can run the tests and update
> for_next tonight or tomorrow.

I see, thanks. No, I do not have any hurry - I have it in my local tree.