On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:36:11AM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >* Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxx> [250123 20:44]: >> 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? > >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
