On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:52:40PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >* 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. > Ok. So you would drop this patch set or still want to take a look? >Thanks, >Liam -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
