* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [250117 00:49]: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 08:31:13AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [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. Thanks, Liam
