On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:32:03 +0800 shaozhengchao wrote:
> On 2022/8/16 11:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:04:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> >> Some qdiscs don't care return value of qdisc offload function, so make
> >> function void.
> >
> > How many of these patches do you have? Is there a goal you're working
> > towards? I don't think the pure return value removals are worth the
> > noise. They don't even save LoC:
> >
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Thank you for your reply. Recently I've been studying the kernel code
> related to qdisc, and my goal is to understand how qdisc works. If the
> code can be optimized, I do what I can to modify the optimization. Is it
> more appropriate to add warning to the offload return value? I look
> forward to your reply. Thank you.
Understood. Please stop sending the cleanups removing return values
unless the patches materially improve the code.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:32:03 +0800 shaozhengchao wrote:
> > On 2022/8/16 11:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:04:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> > >> Some qdiscs don't care return value of qdisc offload function, so make
> > >> function void.
> > >
> > > How many of these patches do you have? Is there a goal you're working
> > > towards? I don't think the pure return value removals are worth the
> > > noise. They don't even save LoC:
> > >
> > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. Recently I've been studying the kernel code
> > related to qdisc, and my goal is to understand how qdisc works. If the
> > code can be optimized, I do what I can to modify the optimization. Is it
> > more appropriate to add warning to the offload return value? I look
> > forward to your reply. Thank you.
>
> Understood. Please stop sending the cleanups removing return values
> unless the patches materially improve the code.
Quoting appropriate here.
+1
cheers,
jamal