From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit05.runbox.com (mailtransmit05.runbox.com [185.226.149.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 735C772627; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 07:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751354892; cv=none; b=NO7CBtgCQqj9PjnTDT7GLIYv4N11pnRiGV21ge4gC56UNbdGevtFB0fjbL0QjvOewiJZ8mnhhy/eTt/g3iRIVPaTH9upS1c9PCPCx4vC85FJtBt1DsrIDgtsPB/l3xgoyXvR0STC59BMDxblI65JL7sPqMZ1ul96+C0LqHPfLQI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751354892; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YDEbnGhuOWLsVA+sCNJxV/TpybCXlMAB4+pgRB4AFgQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VoLulGQ7m6deCn8WSj1nKxct2k+BnPCjJWmcwivO8C+54LHZwLpX5d8MygqIyKl7aaSCv0wQ/wdr+XzFTRDkhuwkJ+1JXdWja5QA58K3FLMjJpMdKQg7hq4OkRqKJtRA8BJJm76xoYFPMlEYazk55C7mkVCTqDA1hEEGr3G8o5Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b=GfhxbFUk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b="GfhxbFUk" Received: from mailtransmit02.runbox ([10.9.9.162] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit05.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1uWVOt-00DBu9-Kt; Tue, 01 Jul 2025 09:27:31 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Cc:To:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=Rkdk2rPksLpTTEM7JfKIBHo3x2rKNHPrlN3G2XHmJyE=; b=GfhxbFUkoy8GS/INc8QHy3peIx zAk3bRrn5f22LX1XhffCbRVtSG+IYOYUXmC1eqG8GcYmhckSwbJ6DPzJVW2/NkXn6DVcg571sDI8W SBaiZX9KdVOX2NxHUQvl+wMDViHZz+OPBtof82UPBLiSEM906u4K3k6c1hYe96ZxN3+JUQszHcP30 j7791qWTu0J4Msgw5d5I38wcYToDoRC4UNlZx+N+vEju0IE6ooDRvIDj1jqHLXZ0yOUpE4D9BC9kb 7m3+oUF+k2A1/XqBip9cjSX6OsFA5oEZIEudkXa+7eB/myI6rAi/i8cQTYcTNp3/as9IzM1JwI7rp 7p/Am+Xw==; Received: from [10.9.9.72] (helo=submission01.runbox) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uWVOs-0000QG-4G; Tue, 01 Jul 2025 09:27:30 +0200 Received: by submission01.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.93) id 1uWVOZ-001vyL-CH; Tue, 01 Jul 2025 09:27:11 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:27:09 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Michal Luczaj Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] net: Remove unused function parameters in skbuff.c To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Neal Cardwell , Kuniyuki Iwashima , David Ahern , Boris Pismenny , John Fastabend , Ayush Sawal , Andrew Lunn , Wenjia Zhang , Jan Karcher , "D. Wythe" , Tony Lu , Wen Gu , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20250626-splice-drop-unused-v2-0-3268fac1af89@rbox.co> <20250630181847.525a0ad6@kernel.org> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <20250630181847.525a0ad6@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/1/25 03:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:33:33 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote: >> Couple of cleanup patches to get rid of unused function parameters around >> skbuff.c, plus little things spotted along the way. >> >> Offshoot of my question in [1], but way more contained. Found by adding >> "-Wunused-parameter -Wno-error" to KBUILD_CFLAGS and grepping for specific >> skbuff.c warnings. > > I feel a little ambivalent about the removal of the flags arguments. > I understand that they are unused now, but theoretically the operation > as a whole has flags so it's not crazy to pass them along.. Dunno. I suspect you can say the same about @gfp. Even though they've both became irrelevant for the functions that define them. But I understand your hesitation. Should I post v3 without this/these changes? What's netdev's stance on using __always_unused in such cases? Thanks, Michal