Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] sunrpc/nfs: cleanup redundant debug checks and refactor macros

Jeff Layton
2026-03-23T13:25:51Z

On Sat, 2026-03-21 at 22:15 +0800, Sean Chang wrote:
> This series cleans up redundant IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG) guards
> across sunrpc, nfsd, and lockd, as these checks are already handled
> within the dprintk macros.
>
> Additionally, it refactors the nfs_errorf() macros into a safer
> do-while(0) pattern and removes unused nfs_warnf() macros to improve
> code maintainability.
>
> v5:
> - Reformat the cleanup of __maybe_unused into a formal 'Revert' patch as requested.
> - Update the macro refactoring commit message to include historical context
> (commit ce8866f0913f) and use backticks for `git grep`.
>
> v4:
> - Add a missing patch to include/linux/sunrpc/debug.h to ensure dprintk()
> properly handles variable referencing via no_printk().
> - Remove obsolete __maybe_unused from fs/nfsd/export.c (revert ebae102897e7)
> as suggested by Andy Shevchenko.
> - Add Reviewed-by and Tested-by tags from Andy Shevchenko.
>
> v3:
> - Added nfs_errorf refactoring and removed unused nfs_warnf macros.
> - Split sunrpc and nfsd changes for better clarity.
>
> v2:
> - Follow reversed xmas tree order for variables in svc_rdma_transport.c
> as requested by Andy Shevchenko.
> - Polish commit message: use dprintk() and remove redundant file list.
> - Correct the technical claim about dprintk() type checking.
>
> Sean Chang (5):
> sunrpc: Fix dprintk type mismatch using do-while(0)
> nfsd/lockd: Remove redundant debug checks
> svcrdma: Remove redundant IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG) guards
> nfs: Refactor nfs_errorf macros and remove unused ones
> Revert "nfsd: Mark variable __maybe_unused to avoid W=1 build break"
>
> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 7 ------
> fs/nfs/internal.h | 28 +++++++++++-------------
> fs/nfsd/export.c | 2 +-
> fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c | 8 +++----
> include/linux/sunrpc/debug.h | 8 ++-----
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c | 25 ++++++++++-----------
> 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

This all looks pretty sane to me.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>