[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]:
[...]
>> >> 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.
>

Liam,

I tried to locate which of my patch introduce the problem, but not succeed.
This is the issue of -Wframe-larger-than=, right?

Would you mind letting me know which one did something bad? So that I can
avoid such thing later.

>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