From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Timothy Day <timday@thelustrecollective.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] ext2: fix ext2_xattr_delete_inode() context analysis warning
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 22:26:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alWJFP2k7bR8REK2@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260713164417.350710-1-timday@thelustrecollective.com>
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 12:44:17PM -0500, Timothy Day wrote:
> I don't think we'd want to disable unlikely() globally when context
> analysis is enabled. Only for cases where it'd conflict with the
> context analysis annotation. Long term, I think we'd want context
> analysis enabled by default for Clang builds.
I see that Marco has a potential change to make LLVM/Clang to handle
this better, which is great, but I'm not sure why disabling unlikely()
globally when context analysis is enabled would be that terrible.
Context analysis wouldn't be changed with or without unlikely(), and
if we use context analysis as a debugging build pass, we wouldn't care
about performance, right? What am I missing?
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-14 2:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-12 16:56 [PATCH v1 0/9] Support Clang context analysis for ext2 Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 1/9] ext2: fix ext2_xattr_delete_inode() context analysis warning Timothy Day
2026-07-13 14:32 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-13 16:44 ` Timothy Day
2026-07-13 22:27 ` Marco Elver
2026-07-13 22:56 ` Marco Elver
2026-07-14 2:26 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2026-07-14 4:17 ` Timothy Day
2026-07-14 4:49 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 2/9] ext2: mark s_next_generation as guarded by s_next_gen_lock Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 3/9] ext2: annotate ext2_update_dynamic_rev() as requiring s_lock Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 4/9] ext2: mark statfs overhead cache as guarded by s_lock Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 5/9] ext2: mark s_mount_state " Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 6/9] ext2: annotate ext2_init_block_alloc_info() as requiring truncate_mutex Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 7/9] ext2: annotate block-mapping helpers " Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 8/9] ext2: annotate s_rsv_window_root as requiring s_rsv_window_lock Timothy Day
2026-07-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v1 9/9] ext2: enabled context analysis support for ext2 filesystem Timothy Day
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alWJFP2k7bR8REK2@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=timday@thelustrecollective.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox