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