[PATCH 3/4] locks: get rid of WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW dead code

[Jeff Layton]

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.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 fs/locks.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 49d240874d4e..4347f3dc17cc 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -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);
 	}
-- 
2.1.0

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/