From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 252E38F45 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 03:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id D289E68BFE; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:55:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:55:20 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Chandan Babu R , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] xfs: remove xfs_attr_shortform_lookup Message-ID: <20231220035520.GA30958@lst.de> References: <20231219120817.923421-1-hch@lst.de> <20231219120817.923421-6-hch@lst.de> <20231219144627.GA1477@lst.de> <20231219174505.GM361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231219174505.GM361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 09:45:05AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Eh, there's lots of, uh, cleanup opportunities in the xattr code. ;) > > The changes below look reasonable, but I wonder -- the leaf and node add > functions do a similar thing; can they go too? > > I'm assuming those can't go away because they actually set @args->index > and @args->rmt* and we might've blown that away after the initial lookup > in xfs_attr_set? But maybe they can? Insofar as figuring all that out > is probably an entire campaign on its own. Yeah, this looks pretty scary to touch for a cleanup series that's already gone kinda out of bounds.. > > > So.. I'm tempted to just turn these checks into asserts with something > > like the below on top of this patch, I'll just need to see if it survives > > testing: > > I'll await your return then. :) It has been surviving testing just fine over night.