On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 11:46:09AM +0200, Alexander Grund wrote: > On 08.08.22 15:28, Greg KH wrote: > > But, we only take patches that actually do something. This one doesn't > > do anything at all, and has no measurable performance or bugfix that I > > can determine at all. > > Isn't "doing less" also worth the patch? Not if it doesn't actually fix something that a user sees. > I mean this patch removes a superflous pointer of the superblock struct > making the kernel use less memory. > It also saves a code line and operation during init and removes the > (somewhat hidden in syntax) superflous indirect access (and hence memory read) > of a pointer already available (likely even in a register) during get/set_mnt_opts. > > Of course the effect here is small but I think cleanups are always good to avoid > a "death by a thousand cuts" scenario, i.e. that even small things help. We do not take "cleanup patches" in stable trees without it being a requirement for a real fix. Please read the stable kernel rules document again for what is actually allowed. thanks, greg k-h
