[V3,18/29] lockdep: Remove save argument from check_prev_add()

Commit Message

Thomas Gleixner April 25, 2019, 9:45 a.m. UTC

There is only one caller which hands in save_trace as function pointer.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c |   16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Patch

--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2158,8 +2158,7 @@  check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr,
  */
 static int
 check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
-	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, struct stack_trace *trace,
-	       int (*save)(struct stack_trace *trace))
+	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, struct stack_trace *trace)
 {
 	struct lock_list *uninitialized_var(target_entry);
 	struct lock_list *entry;
@@ -2199,11 +2198,11 @@  check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr,
 	if (unlikely(!ret)) {
 		if (!trace->entries) {
 			/*
-			 * If @save fails here, the printing might trigger
-			 * a WARN but because of the !nr_entries it should
-			 * not do bad things.
+			 * If save_trace fails here, the printing might
+			 * trigger a WARN but because of the !nr_entries it
+			 * should not do bad things.
 			 */
-			save(trace);
+			save_trace(trace);
 		}
 		return print_circular_bug(&this, target_entry, next, prev);
 	}
@@ -2253,7 +2252,7 @@  check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr,
 		return print_bfs_bug(ret);
 
 
-	if (!trace->entries && !save(trace))
+	if (!trace->entries && !save_trace(trace))
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
@@ -2318,7 +2317,8 @@  check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr
 		 * added:
 		 */
 		if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
-			int ret = check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance, &trace, save_trace);
+			int ret = check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance,
+						 &trace);
 			if (!ret)
 				return 0;