From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] mark pseudo user as deleted instead of removing them Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:24:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20170804002230.5047-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20170804155822.kr3bzd2amnxzqk76@ltop.local> <20170804191216.x35bhjg6uskvzzu3@ltop.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:36009 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751216AbdHDTYs (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:24:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id v77so11453774pgb.3 for ; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:24:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170804191216.x35bhjg6uskvzzu3@ltop.local> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Luc Van Oostenryck Cc: Linux-Sparse On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: >> 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). Yes, exactly. Testing was the mental model. Implementation can be optimized away. :-) Wait for your new patch then. Chris