btrfs: change btrfs_free_reserved_bytes to return void

btrfs_free_reserved_bytes uses the variable "ret" for return value,
but it is not modified after initialzation. Further, I find that any of
the callers do not handle the return value, so it is safe to drop the
unneeded "ret" and return void. There are no callees that would need the
function to handle or pass the value either.

Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 241d54e30294beb8b3188eaec468a25c45f0ed76..67b9f67945b31b62e455d538d92353b83316bcbe 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -6422,11 +6422,10 @@ static int btrfs_add_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
  * reserve set to 0 in order to clear the reservation.
  */
 
-static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
-                                    u64 num_bytes, int delalloc)
+static void btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
+                                     u64 num_bytes, int delalloc)
 {
        struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = cache->space_info;
-       int ret = 0;
 
        spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
        spin_lock(&cache->lock);
@@ -6439,7 +6438,6 @@ static int btrfs_free_reserved_bytes(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache,
                cache->delalloc_bytes -= num_bytes;
        spin_unlock(&cache->lock);
        spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
-       return ret;
 }
 void btrfs_prepare_extent_commit(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
 {