[DRBD-cvs] svn commit by lars - r2981 - branches/drbd-8.0-for-linus/drbd - fd43b7e8cefe861ac4c25483396ad3912fd832bf DRBD: cleanup:

[drbd-cvs at lists.linbit.com]

Author: lars
Date: 2007-07-23 18:04:49 +0200 (Mon, 23 Jul 2007)
New Revision: 2981

Modified:
   branches/drbd-8.0-for-linus/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c
Log:
fd43b7e8cefe861ac4c25483396ad3912fd832bf DRBD: cleanup: removed even more compatibility ifdefs
well, almost nothing of it, actually.
we must stay compatibile out-of-tree for now...


Modified: branches/drbd-8.0-for-linus/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c
===================================================================
--- branches/drbd-8.0-for-linus/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c	2007-07-23 15:55:14 UTC (rev 2980)
+++ branches/drbd-8.0-for-linus/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c	2007-07-23 16:04:49 UTC (rev 2981)
@@ -1027,14 +1027,6 @@
 	ERR_IF(!b) return 1;
 	ERR_IF(!b->bm) return 1;
 
-#if 0
-	/* hm. I assumed that, when inside of lock_irq/unlock_irq,
-	 * in_interrupt() would be true ?
-	 * how else can I assert that this called with irq disabled without using
-	 * spin_lock_irqsave? */
-	D_BUG_ON(!in_interrupt()); /* called within spin_lock_irq(&mdev->req_lock) */
-#endif
-
 	spin_lock(&b->bm_lock);
 	BM_PARANOIA_CHECK();
 	MUST_NOT_BE_LOCKED();