Fix some nonempty blank lines

[ira/wip.git] / lib / tdb / common / traverse.c

diff --git a/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c b/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c
index d329ef4da4030c095e530b0d7b05b344c2256305..baaf58ae87dabc3d0048ca1c95f04ac0780ac298 100644 (file)
--- a/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c
+++ b/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c
@@ -6,11 +6,11 @@
    Copyright (C) Andrew Tridgell              1999-2005
    Copyright (C) Paul `Rusty' Russell             2000
    Copyright (C) Jeremy Allison                           2000-2003
-   
+
      ** NOTE! The following LGPL license applies to the tdb
      ** library. This does NOT imply that all of Samba is released
      ** under the LGPL
-   
+
    This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static tdb_off_t tdb_next_lock(struct tdb_context *tdb, struct tdb_traverse_lock
                           common for the use of tdb with ldb, where large
                           hashes are used. In that case we spend most of our
                           time in tdb_brlock(), locking empty hash chains.
-                          
+
                           To avoid this, we do an unlocked pre-check to see
                           if the hash chain is empty before starting to look
                           inside it. If it is empty then we can avoid that
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static tdb_off_t tdb_next_lock(struct tdb_context *tdb, struct tdb_traverse_lock
                           the value we get back, as we read it without a
                           lock, so instead we get the lock and re-fetch the
                           value below.
-                          
+
                           Notice that not doing this optimisation on the
                           first hash chain is critical. We must guarantee
                           that we have done at least one fcntl lock at the
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static tdb_off_t tdb_next_lock(struct tdb_context *tdb, struct tdb_traverse_lock
                           could possibly miss those with this trick, but we
                           could miss them anyway without this trick, so the
                           semantics don't change.
-                          
+
                           With a non-indexed ldb search this trick gains us a
                           factor of around 80 in speed on a linux 2.6.x
                           system (testing using ldbtest).