From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH] mark pseudo user as deleted instead of removing them Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 21:12:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20170804191216.x35bhjg6uskvzzu3@ltop.local> References: <20170804002230.5047-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20170804155822.kr3bzd2amnxzqk76@ltop.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:36888 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281AbdHDTMX (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:12:23 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id t201so26913736wmt.0 for ; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Linux-Sparse On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:19:54PM -0400, Christopher Li wrote: > First thing first, I don't have strong reason to object this patch. > So it can be merge into RC5. OK, good. > > I would be fine with this patch (but it would need a bit more testing). > > I would be fine with no patch at all. > > I would be ok with your patch (the one with list duplication) but I > > think it's not a good one, even as a temporary bandaid (for the reasons > > I explained the first time I commented on it). > > Fair enough. Yes. I can apply it. The question is, do you want to remove > the duplicate set of API? (by testing "list->rm"). Sure but I think I will even not test anything at all. For the others lists we don't touch to the ->rm field and we have the guarantee that it will be initialized to zero so adding nr or adding (nr - rm) will be the same anyway (and doing the substraction certainly won't cost more than adding a test). -- Luc