[PATCH 0/7] spanning write related cleanup

[Wei Yang]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:36:11AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang at gmail.com> [250123 20:44]:
>> 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?
>
>I was going to look at it, but after I send my reply, I received a
>report of an issue caused in a certain configuration that caused the
>stack frame to grow out of the configured 1024 limit, which was tracked
>to a patch you added to simplify a previous function.

Sorry for that. Would you mind letting me know what is the problem? or cc me
in case you will fix it?

>
>So, I think we should drop these patches since they don't make a
>measurable difference and are not without risk.
>
>Thanks,
>Liam

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me