2024-01-25 10:09:19

by Kunwu Chan

Subject: [PATCH] powerpc/cell: Code cleanup for spufs_mfc_flush

This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
in about 18 years before.

If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
we can remove this dead code.

Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c | 12 ------------
1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
index 02a8158c469d..d5e1af483601 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
@@ -1705,19 +1705,7 @@ static int spufs_mfc_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id)
ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
if (ret)
goto out;
-#if 0
-/* this currently hangs */
- ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
- ctx->ops->set_mfc_query(ctx, ctx->tagwait, 2));
- if (ret)
- goto out;
- ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
- ctx->ops->read_mfc_tagstatus(ctx) == ctx->tagwait);
- if (ret)
- goto out;
-#else
ret = 0;
-#endif
spu_release(ctx);
out:
return ret;
--
2.39.2

2024-01-25 11:14:46

by Christophe Leroy

Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/cell: Code cleanup for spufs_mfc_flush

Le 25/01/2024 à 11:08, Kunwu Chan a écrit :
> This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
> ("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
> in about 18 years before.
>
> If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
> we can remove this dead code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c | 12 ------------
> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
> index 02a8158c469d..d5e1af483601 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
> @@ -1705,19 +1705,7 @@ static int spufs_mfc_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id)
> ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
> if (ret)
> goto out;
> -#if 0
> -/* this currently hangs */
> - ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
> - ctx->ops->set_mfc_query(ctx, ctx->tagwait, 2));
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> - ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
> - ctx->ops->read_mfc_tagstatus(ctx) == ctx->tagwait);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> -#else
> ret = 0;

If you arrived here, it means ret is already 0, otherwise you would have
jumped to label out:, so you can also remove that ret = 0 setting.

And while you are at it, there is no point in a goto to just a return,
just return instead of the goto, and then you can return 0 directly,
something like:

ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
if (ret)
return ret;

spu_release(ctx);

return 0;


That would be a better cleanup.

> -#endif
> spu_release(ctx);
> out:
> return ret;

2024-01-26 01:59:05

by Kunwu Chan

Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/cell: Code cleanup for spufs_mfc_flush

On 2024/1/25 18:41, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 25/01/2024 à 11:08, Kunwu Chan a écrit :
>> This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
>> ("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
>> in about 18 years before.
>>
>> If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
>> we can remove this dead code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c | 12 ------------
>> 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
>> index 02a8158c469d..d5e1af483601 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
>> @@ -1705,19 +1705,7 @@ static int spufs_mfc_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id)
>> ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
>> if (ret)
>> goto out;
>> -#if 0
>> -/* this currently hangs */
>> - ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
>> - ctx->ops->set_mfc_query(ctx, ctx->tagwait, 2));
>> - if (ret)
>> - goto out;
>> - ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
>> - ctx->ops->read_mfc_tagstatus(ctx) == ctx->tagwait);
>> - if (ret)
>> - goto out;
>> -#else
>> ret = 0;
>
Thanks for your reply.
> If you arrived here, it means ret is already 0, otherwise you would have
> jumped to label out:, so you can also remove that ret = 0 setting.
>
I'm patronizing the removal of useless code, it's my bad.
> And while you are at it, there is no point in a goto to just a return,
> just return instead of the goto, and then you can return 0 directly,
> something like:
>
> ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> spu_release(ctx);
>
> return 0;
>
>
> That would be a better cleanup.
Thanks for your suggestions,i'll update in v2 and add a 'Suggested-by:'.
>
>> -#endif
>> spu_release(ctx);
>> out:
>> return ret;
--
Thanks,
Kunwu