From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E454CC3A5A3 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF31422CE9 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 06:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726452AbfH3Gjb (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:39:31 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.188]:3983 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726005AbfH3Gja (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:39:30 -0400 Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 965DF347AF6FC41C08BF; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:27 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:26 +0800 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:38:39 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Dan Carpenter CC: Chao Yu , , Sasha Levin , Valdis =?gbk?Q?Kl=A8=A5tnieks?= , Greg Kroah-Hartman , , Christoph Hellwig , , OGAWA Hirofumi Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging Message-ID: <20190830063838.GA144157@architecture4> References: <20190829062340.GB3047@infradead.org> <20190829063955.GA30193@kroah.com> <20190829094136.GA28643@infradead.org> <20190829095019.GA13557@kroah.com> <20190829103749.GA13661@infradead.org> <20190829111810.GA23393@kroah.com> <20190829151144.GJ23584@kadam> <20190829152757.GA125003@architecture4> <20190829154346.GK23584@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.106) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dan, On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:06:25AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/8/29 23:43, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> p.s. There are 2947 (un)likely places in fs/ directory. > > > > I was complaining about you adding new pointless ones, not existing > > ones. The likely/unlikely annotations are supposed to be functional and > > not decorative. I explained this very clearly. > > > > Probably most of the annotations in fs/ are wrong but they are also > > harmless except for the slight messiness. However there are definitely > > some which are important so removing them all isn't a good idea. > > Hi Dan, > > Could you please pick up one positive example using likely and unlikely > correctly? so we can follow the example, rather than removing them all blindly. I'm also curious about that, what is the filesystem or kernel standard about likely/unlikely use (since I didn't find some documented standard so I used in my personal way, I think it is reasonable at least to cover all error handling paths), maybe I'm an _idiot_ as some earlier unfriendly word said somewhere so I'm too stupid to understand the implicit meaning of some document. > > Thanks, > > > > >> If you like, I will delete them all. > > > > But for erofs, I don't think that any of the likely/unlikely calls have > > been thought about so I'm fine with removing all of them in one go. Add a word (just a note), I don't think such kind of "any", "few", "all" words are meaningful without some explicit evidence. (e.g. such as EROFS have few error handling path. I don't think that is true and worth to give many details since EROFS code is here for more than one year.) Yes, EROFS is not prefectly, I have to admit, and I said similar words on other threads for many times if you decide to check each likely/unlikely line by line, I cannot say all unlikely/likely cases I wrote are reasonable (just as bug-free, I think no one can make such guarantee even for new code), but I can say the majority of them are reasonable in my personal understanding of likely/unlikely. And I can fix all your reports in time (but maybe some are not urgent at all.) In addition there will be endless discussions on detailed code since there are many personal tendencies from various people in it, as the saying goes "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. " Anyway, I have sent a patch to kill them all blindly as you like, so I think we can come to an agreement on it, but I still don't fully agree with your "for EROFS, I don't think that any of the likely/unlikely calls have been thought about" conclusion. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > > > . > >