[PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.

---

 drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
 drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
 drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
 drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
 drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
 drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
 drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
 drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
 drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
 fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
 fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
 fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
 fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
 20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)

[PATCH 08/20] xfs: xfs_buf: drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares has never
been used.

The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@@
identifier x;
@@
- LIST_HEAD(x);
  ... when != x
// </smpl>

Fixes: 26f1fe858f274 ("xfs: reduce lock hold times in buffer writeback")
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>

---
Successfully 0-day tested on 151 configurations.

 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
index b21ea2ba768d..eedc5e0156ff 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
@@ -1992,7 +1992,6 @@ xfs_buf_delwri_submit_buffers(
 	struct list_head	*wait_list)
 {
 	struct xfs_buf		*bp, *n;
-	LIST_HEAD		(submit_list);
 	int			pinned = 0;
 	struct blk_plug		plug;
 

Re: [PATCH 08/20] xfs: xfs_buf: drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 09:57:03AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares has never
> been used.
> 
> The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> 
> // <smpl>
> @@
> identifier x;
> @@
> - LIST_HEAD(x);
>   ... when != x
> // </smpl>
> 
> Fixes: 26f1fe858f274 ("xfs: reduce lock hold times in buffer writeback")
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>

Looks ok; are you planning to push this whole series directly to Linus
or do you want me to take the two xfs patches through?

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

--D

> 
> ---
> Successfully 0-day tested on 151 configurations.
> 
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c |    1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index b21ea2ba768d..eedc5e0156ff 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -1992,7 +1992,6 @@ xfs_buf_delwri_submit_buffers(
>  	struct list_head	*wait_list)
>  {
>  	struct xfs_buf		*bp, *n;
> -	LIST_HEAD		(submit_list);
>  	int			pinned = 0;
>  	struct blk_plug		plug;
>  
> 

Re: [PATCH 08/20] xfs: xfs_buf: drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 09:57:03AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares has never
> > been used.
> >
> > The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
> > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >
> > // <smpl>
> > @@
> > identifier x;
> > @@
> > - LIST_HEAD(x);
> >   ... when != x
> > // </smpl>
> >
> > Fixes: 26f1fe858f274 ("xfs: reduce lock hold times in buffer writeback")
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>
>
> Looks ok; are you planning to push this whole series directly to Linus
> or do you want me to take the two xfs patches through?

Please take them.  Thanks.

julia

>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
>
> --D
>
> >
> > ---
> > Successfully 0-day tested on 151 configurations.
> >
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c |    1 -
> >  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > index b21ea2ba768d..eedc5e0156ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > @@ -1992,7 +1992,6 @@ xfs_buf_delwri_submit_buffers(
> >  	struct list_head	*wait_list)
> >  {
> >  	struct xfs_buf		*bp, *n;
> > -	LIST_HEAD		(submit_list);
> >  	int			pinned = 0;
> >  	struct blk_plug		plug;
> >
> >
>

[PATCH 09/20] xfs: xfs_fsops: drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.

Commit 0410c3bb2b88 ("xfs: factor ag btree root block
initialisation") stopped using buffer_list and started using a
buffer list in an aghdr_init_data structure, but the declaration
of buffer_list was not removed.

The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@@
identifier x;
@@
- LIST_HEAD(x);
  ... when != x
// </smpl>

Fixes: 0410c3bb2b88 ("xfs: factor ag btree root block initialisation")
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>

---
Successfully 0-day tested on 151 configurations.

 fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
index ec2e63a7963b..f3ef70c542e1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ xfs_growfs_data_private(
 	xfs_rfsblock_t		new;
 	xfs_agnumber_t		oagcount;
 	xfs_trans_t		*tp;
-	LIST_HEAD		(buffer_list);
 	struct aghdr_init_data	id = {};
 
 	nb = in->newblocks;

Re: [PATCH 09/20] xfs: xfs_fsops: drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
> 
> Commit 0410c3bb2b88 ("xfs: factor ag btree root block
> initialisation") stopped using buffer_list and started using a
> buffer list in an aghdr_init_data structure, but the declaration
> of buffer_list was not removed.
> 
> The semantic patch that fixes this problem is as follows:
> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> 
> // <smpl>
> @@
> identifier x;
> @@
> - LIST_HEAD(x);
>   ... when != x
> // </smpl>
> 
> Fixes: 0410c3bb2b88 ("xfs: factor ag btree root block initialisation")
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

--D

> 
> ---
> Successfully 0-day tested on 151 configurations.
> 
>  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c |    1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> index ec2e63a7963b..f3ef70c542e1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ xfs_growfs_data_private(
>  	xfs_rfsblock_t		new;
>  	xfs_agnumber_t		oagcount;
>  	xfs_trans_t		*tp;
> -	LIST_HEAD		(buffer_list);
>  	struct aghdr_init_data	id = {};
>  
>  	nb = in->newblocks;
> 

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Tom Psyborg]

Why do you CC this to so many lists?

On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
>
> ---
>
>  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
>  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
>  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
>  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
>  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
>  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
>  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
>  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
>  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
>  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
>  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
>  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
>  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
>

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote:

> Why do you CC this to so many lists?

Because the different files are in different subsystems.  The cover letter
goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list.  The
patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files.

julia

>
> On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
> >  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
> >  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
> >  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
> >  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
> >  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
> >  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
> >  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
> >  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
> >  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
> >  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
> >  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
> >
>

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Tom Psyborg]

there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
more than enough

On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2018, Tom Psyborg wrote:
>
>> Why do you CC this to so many lists?
>
> Because the different files are in different subsystems.  The cover letter
> goes to a list for each file, or to a person if there is no list.  The
> patches go to the people and lists associated with the affected files.
>
> julia
>
>>
>> On 23/12/2018, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>> > Drop LIST_HEAD where the variable it declares is never used.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> >  drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c                                |    5 -----
>> >  drivers/dma/dw/core.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  drivers/dma/pl330.c                                   |    1 -
>> >  drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c                              |    2 --
>> >  drivers/dma/st_fdma.c                                 |    3 ---
>> >  drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_ib.c               |    1 -
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/resource_tracker.c |    5 -----
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c       |    3 ---
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c        |    1 -
>> >  drivers/net/wireless/st/cw1200/queue.c                |    1 -
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c                         |    2 --
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_scsi.c                         |    2 --
>> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c                          |    1 -
>> >  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c                       |    1 -
>> >  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_dev_frontend.c              |    2 --
>> >  fs/btrfs/relocation.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  fs/nfs/nfs4client.c                                   |    1 -
>> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4layouts.c                                 |    1 -
>> >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                                      |    1 -
>> >  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c                                    |    1 -
>> >  20 files changed, 36 deletions(-)
>> >
>>
>

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> more than enough
> 

I don't know who you were discussing this with...

You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
clear rule.

For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.

If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into
get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic.

My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver???  I always
remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue.

regards,
dan carpenter

PS:  Please, no more top posting.

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> > more than enough
> > 
> 
> I don't know who you were discussing this with...
> 
> You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
> clear rule.
> 
> For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
> a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
> patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
> dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.

Agreed.  Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches"
(as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :)

For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches
than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to
go wanting for more context.

--D

> If we really have other clear rules, then it should be encoded into
> get_maintainer.pl so that it's automatic.
> 
> My other question is why do the linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> people feel like they need to be CC'd about every driver???  I always
> remove them from the CC list unless it's an arch/arm issue.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
> PS:  Please, no more top posting.
> 

Re: [PATCH 00/20] drop useless LIST_HEAD

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 04:40:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 11:12:20PM +0100, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > > there was discussion about this just some days ago. CC 4-5 lists is
> > > more than enough
> > >
> >
> > I don't know who you were discussing this with...
> >
> > You should CC the 0th patch to all the mailinglists.  That much is a
> > clear rule.
> >
> > For the rest, Julia's position is the more conservative one.  I was in
> > a conversation in RL and they were like, "CC everyone for all the
> > patches".  It depends on the context, of course.  If the patches are
> > dependent on each other then you *have* to CC everyone for everything.
>
> Agreed.  Ms. Lawall, sending "Cover letter + all relevant XFS patches"
> (as you did) was exactly the right thing for us xfs types. :)
>
> For that matter, we prefer to receive through linux-xfs more patches
> than necessary (one can send the entire series if one is unsure) than to
> go wanting for more context.

Thanks for the confirmation.  I was planning to ignore the 4-5 advice,
because there is no way in this case to make a meaningful 4-5 list
suggestion - it's either all or nothing.  But 20 patches at once is
perhaps a lot as well.  In this case, I just wanted to get rid of the
whole issue at once.

julia