[PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[cem]

From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>

Comment the code out so kernel test robot stop complaining about it
every single test build.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
---
 fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
index e382a35e98d88..228efe0c99be8 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
@@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ xchk_setup_fscounters(
 	return xchk_trans_alloc(sc, 0);
 }
 
+#if 0
 /*
  * Part 1: Collecting filesystem summary counts.  For each AG, we add its
  * summary counts (total inodes, free inodes, free data blocks) to an incore
@@ -349,6 +350,7 @@ xchk_fscount_count_frextents(
 	return 0;
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_XFS_RT */
+#endif
 
 /*
  * Part 2: Comparing filesystem summary counters.  All we have to do here is
@@ -422,7 +424,10 @@ xchk_fscounters(
 	struct xfs_mount	*mp = sc->mp;
 	struct xchk_fscounters	*fsc = sc->buf;
 	int64_t			icount, ifree, fdblocks, frextents;
+
+#if 0
 	int			error;
+#endif
 
 	/* Snapshot the percpu counters. */
 	icount = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_icount);
@@ -452,6 +457,7 @@ xchk_fscounters(
 	 */
 	return 0;
 
+#if 0
 	/*
 	 * If ifree exceeds icount by more than the minimum variance then
 	 * something's probably wrong with the counters.
@@ -489,4 +495,5 @@ xchk_fscounters(
 		xchk_set_corrupt(sc);
 
 	return 0;
+#endif
 }
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:11:22PM +0200, cem@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
> 
> Comment the code out so kernel test robot stop complaining about it
> every single test build.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>

Thank you,
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

--D

> ---
>  fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
> index e382a35e98d88..228efe0c99be8 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ xchk_setup_fscounters(
>  	return xchk_trans_alloc(sc, 0);
>  }
>  
> +#if 0
>  /*
>   * Part 1: Collecting filesystem summary counts.  For each AG, we add its
>   * summary counts (total inodes, free inodes, free data blocks) to an incore
> @@ -349,6 +350,7 @@ xchk_fscount_count_frextents(
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_XFS_RT */
> +#endif
>  
>  /*
>   * Part 2: Comparing filesystem summary counters.  All we have to do here is
> @@ -422,7 +424,10 @@ xchk_fscounters(
>  	struct xfs_mount	*mp = sc->mp;
>  	struct xchk_fscounters	*fsc = sc->buf;
>  	int64_t			icount, ifree, fdblocks, frextents;
> +
> +#if 0
>  	int			error;
> +#endif
>  
>  	/* Snapshot the percpu counters. */
>  	icount = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_icount);
> @@ -452,6 +457,7 @@ xchk_fscounters(
>  	 */
>  	return 0;
>  
> +#if 0
>  	/*
>  	 * If ifree exceeds icount by more than the minimum variance then
>  	 * something's probably wrong with the counters.
> @@ -489,4 +495,5 @@ xchk_fscounters(
>  		xchk_set_corrupt(sc);
>  
>  	return 0;
> +#endif
>  }
> -- 
> 2.30.2
> 

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:11:22PM +0200, cem@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
> 
> Comment the code out so kernel test robot stop complaining about it
> every single test build.

Err, what?  #if 0ing commit coe is a complete no-go.  If this code
is dead it should be removed.

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Carlos Maiolino]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:39:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 05:11:22PM +0200, cem@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
> >
> > Comment the code out so kernel test robot stop complaining about it
> > every single test build.
> 
> Err, what?  #if 0ing commit coe is a complete no-go.  If this code
> is dead it should be removed.

The code isn't dead, it's temporarily broken. I spoke with Darrick about
removing it, but by doing that, later, 'reverting' the patch that removed the
broken code, will break the git history (specifically for git blame), and I
didn't want to give Darrick extra work by needing to re-add back all this code
later when he come back to work on this.
Anyway, just an attempt to quiet built test warning alerts :)
I'm totally fine ^R'ing these emails :)

-- 
Carlos

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:37:57AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> The code isn't dead, it's temporarily broken. I spoke with Darrick about
> removing it, but by doing that, later, 'reverting' the patch that removed the
> broken code, will break the git history (specifically for git blame), and I
> didn't want to give Darrick extra work by needing to re-add back all this code
> later when he come back to work on this.
> Anyway, just an attempt to quiet built test warning alerts :)
> I'm totally fine ^R'ing these emails :)

#if 0 is a realy bad thing.  I'd much prefer to remvoe it and re-added
it when needed.  But even if Darrick insists on just disabling it, you
need to add a comment explaining what is going on, because otherwise
people will just trip over the complete undocumented #if 0 with a
completely meaningless commit message in git-blame.  That's how people
dealt with code in the early 90s and not now.

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Carlos Maiolino]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:48:04AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:37:57AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > The code isn't dead, it's temporarily broken. I spoke with Darrick about
> > removing it, but by doing that, later, 'reverting' the patch that removed the
> > broken code, will break the git history (specifically for git blame), and I
> > didn't want to give Darrick extra work by needing to re-add back all this code
> > later when he come back to work on this.
> > Anyway, just an attempt to quiet built test warning alerts :)
> > I'm totally fine ^R'ing these emails :)
> 
> #if 0 is a realy bad thing.  I'd much prefer to remvoe it and re-added
> it when needed.  But even if Darrick insists on just disabling it, you
> need to add a comment explaining what is going on, because otherwise
> people will just trip over the complete undocumented #if 0 with a
> completely meaningless commit message in git-blame.  That's how people
> dealt with code in the early 90s and not now.

You are right, I should have added at least some comment on that, I'll wait for
Darrick to wake up and see if we deal with it somehow or just leave it as-is.

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:48:04AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:48:04AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:37:57AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > > The code isn't dead, it's temporarily broken. I spoke with Darrick about
> > > removing it, but by doing that, later, 'reverting' the patch that removed the
> > > broken code, will break the git history (specifically for git blame), and I
> > > didn't want to give Darrick extra work by needing to re-add back all this code
> > > later when he come back to work on this.
> > > Anyway, just an attempt to quiet built test warning alerts :)
> > > I'm totally fine ^R'ing these emails :)
> > 
> > #if 0 is a realy bad thing.  I'd much prefer to remvoe it and re-added
> > it when needed.  But even if Darrick insists on just disabling it, you
> > need to add a comment explaining what is going on, because otherwise
> > people will just trip over the complete undocumented #if 0 with a
> > completely meaningless commit message in git-blame.  That's how people
> > dealt with code in the early 90s and not now.
> 
> You are right, I should have added at least some comment on that, I'll wait for
> Darrick to wake up and see if we deal with it somehow or just leave it as-is.

*Someone* please just review the fixes for fscounters.c that I put on
the list two weeks ago.  The first two patches of the patchset are
sufficient to fix this problem.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/168506061483.3732954.5178462816967376906.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/

--D

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:28:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> *Someone* please just review the fixes for fscounters.c that I put on
> the list two weeks ago.  The first two patches of the patchset are
> sufficient to fix this problem.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/168506061483.3732954.5178462816967376906.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/

That sounds like a way better idea indeed.  I'll get to it after my
meetings.

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: Comment out unreachable code within xchk_fscounters()

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:30:55AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 07:28:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > *Someone* please just review the fixes for fscounters.c that I put on
> > the list two weeks ago.  The first two patches of the patchset are
> > sufficient to fix this problem.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/168506061483.3732954.5178462816967376906.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/
> 
> That sounds like a way better idea indeed.  I'll get to it after my
> meetings.

FYI there's a parallel discussion about the same patch going on fsdevel:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230522234200.GC11598@frogsfrogsfrogs/

--D