From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.4]) (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 27A385D497; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.227.15.4 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707676205; cv=none; b=IaKWrfo5BjMfExw3XlLTsHboDr1wSky+zIUJlSjG3TzY3Te4CMGMVR88A5lHXhF8YoOUZ3fNEnYL0IQfX8dVvDe52whGrDJ3C+CtO2JE/KMZJjw354gKlNHv3JbPos/jUGyVtDjqkEoo9UAGpW3JttNYDv0GDK1xxG5N4DryPug= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707676205; c=relaxed/simple; bh=74YHyaDhJLXssD4iP9ahFOyAatWAfcQ49coXo35cm18=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:To:Cc:References:Subject:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=upfB20QbcfxiVC9MGO3l/1j/lZhx7E5yIblXrJYmYusrtk8x12NjLHZ9fuYgTnhTGtQ5U4/3f4iM/gxa+4lr/LA+AJcKhaGCa9jcpRg09DRp7S2eC99TNqxMmYGHxfeVjtQQl56Ndn+y1F10HuVhL0Le3Baccl+LrosWg/DAdag= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=web.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=web.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=web.de header.i=markus.elfring@web.de header.b=kqYKgoh0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.227.15.4 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=web.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=web.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=web.de header.i=markus.elfring@web.de header.b="kqYKgoh0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1707676174; x=1708280974; i=markus.elfring@web.de; bh=74YHyaDhJLXssD4iP9ahFOyAatWAfcQ49coXo35cm18=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:To:Cc:References:Subject:From: In-Reply-To; b=kqYKgoh0Hs7D5bhjC02lOcuXQVIYV/9CxN3yWqJWhRSY/KhVvF4qLkDe2QSStatR sR/jRBgcsqErHEjCUt6f1ZYyS1C4TJrbRG8NZYR4aJ2SBCWYaLWLAn4Xvs83QicIv HOzXSRNMwQ34XwqRK0FrdnKGCbKg09/obu72qUDeegySthjghdu2HOUgbtCT5SqOc Pgxx3nDXrQ7FxcdBvf1cV06Cv483SSkeeqkN3ohLX6123iUI4Eojxe+W6OmAWZ2P3 syujlUf0LAWuDY9V2UelxSXgjc6SwQaheFuALrp4zxJNTCGPSIbr2RCu8ZJcvLiGr 8ZqD2OoAgweLFzG5oA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([94.31.80.95]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb006 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mv3Ya-1qie1m1ySG-00r3IB; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:29:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:29:28 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Dan Carpenter , Matthew Sakai , "J. corwin Coburn" , Sweet Tea Dorminy , Mike Snitzer , dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Cc: LKML References: <16ffd614-48a9-42b8-961d-2dc8a69c48d6@moroto.mountain> Subject: Re: dm vdo slab-depot: delete unnecessary check Content-Language: en-GB From: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: <16ffd614-48a9-42b8-961d-2dc8a69c48d6@moroto.mountain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:o5C86Z9n5z4X2YsnFMlMnGSSfF15aQxmj9OgobzQ3XBKbZz+Dru HJOlK4fIAoOl5ReAteu7vc6S4gzCSVPcf00uYHZ8YmUNVWdOMAq7trdjq7xUsSBgTzWb484 MH3YyzbNzqWjhgqpCbOlpOzIK799asb7cdj+YkEV8mP0hpqtsyCsLSnIQHEtkfT8IxBHPCQ NdmoIGr5zJkfyFpPehLsQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:7nZPYxQdON4=;fHrT4ZFPZ6VGtdo5GteLvoqy77w fZO5DenF+Zif5rIahUiQEyTbq43jvCnLgGxcaJ/Ii6iRIc4So43poG7UQpOVAka6RTZDbgTzp ZbYCIrmibi5VW+ByCvWZULwCA0bfWG+hXLqnM5XuZUDqfv0337mRJmTNoNN/dQvidK8WFVL0Q uaD/YNKJvcmx76ZARUT90eFHDwTLAihBsMXPJdpe16FcIbChChU9yiYKWEqNtO9408ZP/ZrJ8 OR28pLGNGTlTHeIJYCMhdm0hq2WQ8rasHuOPllVuyrGcAvLuUvxsaMjHRF3RkESNgFSmy2Jzy n4mcUk2b3HLoT+tLjGYT0v8EjjOi14fm5QuOwLjP7FqE4I8Y3dTQDT/IVVPGuTMgJ25iUgdty UB/12EDfbZcpmsiSnrSaXlMkdoR34r3BeiGvQ4zZB7EWT+DiPkFqnd8ngxhNJv8/8dcPKCZxk gwo3TP76IiCn7c51Ubu8UenDQBjmyULtmGCNs942zR3ESu57OO/9rF0x6peMShiji4XHqoDXG IYJrVx5UrYT5wn1enml8YH9KB7ikskhRfwp65sJhO4z4LQKFIQykW7F5UxqJOyA+CmGCh9Jud yDNESGh237ymZT4+Wdc2LKYLEw9/Sjqar6LLpDIRkXLSUquXvEsTjG57v0CgcgYalb1Gw+68e Ly4JuU0SdP+TlRK7tFX8lQnJT/FcOb3d2ZvLEvTsM3665HoH7J+gSP91a7J6DaYpdGLSObrjx 3YPuf5j0Ytp4tGTVi3zNvE9mMAGBw7v9JHfRPCZzm1/4oIOHSJ54JYCOKJ+kceZYYzI+IbYHN 6WuxoJBpf1MkzS+zqXaaGeE0mL3bT1H2gHGZX0QkYUCFw= > This is a duplicate check Was this implementation detail detected with any known source code analysi= s tool? > so it can't be true. =E2=80=A6 I suggest to reconsider this information a bit more. Would you usually expect the outcome =E2=80=9Cresult =3D=3D VDO_SUCCESS=E2= =80=9D from a call of the function =E2=80=9Cuds_allocate=E2=80=9D? Regards, Markus