[PATCH 0/7] spanning write related cleanup

[Wei Yang]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:52:40PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang at gmail.com> [250117 00:49]:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 08:31:13AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>> >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang at gmail.com> [241126 20:28]:
>> >> Here is some cleanup related to spanning write.
>> >
>> >None of these fix anything, but do fiddle with code that's pretty
>> >critical to the kernel.  Most of the changes will be immeasurable in
>> >change but carry risk to causing subtle changes.
>> >
>> >Some are simple removal of returns that aren't used while others change
>> >things because you think they are probably the equivalent.  This seems
>> >like unnecessary chrun at this point.  I'm all for efficient code but
>> >this is getting a bit much, some of these are just preference of what to
>> >use that will already exist in the cpu cache.
>> >
>> >I'll get back to you when I dig through them, as some need a deeper look
>> >for sure.
>> >
>> >Liam
>> >
>> 
>> Hi, Liam
>> 
>> Would you mind taking a look when you have time?
>
>Yes, I'll have a look soon.  I don't love changes that dive deep into
>complex code that results in no gains (performance or feature wise).
>
>It's also odd to have simple "this return isn't use" and things moving
>code blocks to be executed only in certain scenarios, as the difficulty
>to verify the latter is much higher.
>
>Can we please limit changes to areas where there is a performance change
>or coupled with a change that is needed?  ie: stop sending patches that
>change things unless it's with a feature or improvement (performance or
>otherwise).  I'm just not convinced some of these are worth the
>cost vs risk.
>

Ok.

So you would drop this patch set or still want to take a look?

>Thanks,
>Liam

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me