Received: by 2002:a25:8b12:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i18csp313978ybl; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:40:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwZMyccteSmjMq/W8G1Zy7jCrbrh0mccyQwzQnS4Im+41C8ay4NF4rkRFFT1t+ZrlnXC/Gm X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a9c3:: with SMTP id b3mr13961867plr.179.1567147242022; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:40:42 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1567147242; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=p/gqyXB8DotG8a2YO+LCZ1LjU1HC/IZ6Q4pEQGTALUczLgeOX5EO/eD7GRvplh3Gy9 dhmqhfAtCtfK0wBiQu9LRBYZFI8RdnleWCsbt4GymKyrp3vsKrLHSec5AAbuvyOQgp6F /tLH8n47Nhh+gajOvGj3iGBqOBGd8iqQQVxmOEAoTu4kCHNhNtSRrWCIsk/JnPK7XzR5 V0+RLqxzDL9h/WG8m122Bwrh+fKurGEspSmr8ALXWv61ckM6CCVu9cEGWA5t3MsNNmfs YX/lt02zqpi2d9zUECXWlVFgqT+eSezRxlEnc/mNr+aC05eggNbJFAPTACHUz0JBuV+V 7k1Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=5j5ZaazHTsxYBHJm+JZKHH2VKvuvQUanFCiIG1mtC+Y=; b=h1giYltHe6b+Lp+bTZirGZB+k5OLP/au1sUOKlVECglQl4aBjO6Fd460Pz8YO7Ym1l 2YXrPLhQ1uFBb1Hz8eJhGsnUpcACtCrm561pD5Eh8+1VFLgrymwPP8+ov/M3x89DP32m WnYyu378T9pwiF08MRDsBT5PgcGfXgtakL1RyQ8Ed8AQZIaqS19u8/MYbVgbniK5jP1T a5TQCa4GHgh1NzLvvt7cxlujDxG4GPqUbtneLacyV7h70HxJtd2QhL0JHN0IUTmbrCws tB5QdbGtlF798m7xbB0hdvZS5wjcXyJRoSHH6EmNjgtByVD+yEJGtcJeXDlSln/nsKWC I4xQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g11si4012872plp.239.2019.08.29.23.40.25; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728006AbfH3Gjb (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:39:31 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.188]:3983 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726005AbfH3Gja (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:39:30 -0400 Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 965DF347AF6FC41C08BF; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:27 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:39:26 +0800 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:38:39 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Dan Carpenter CC: Chao Yu , , Sasha Levin , Valdis =?gbk?Q?Kl=A8=A5tnieks?= , Greg Kroah-Hartman , , Christoph Hellwig , , OGAWA Hirofumi Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: exfat: add exfat filesystem code to staging Message-ID: <20190830063838.GA144157@architecture4> References: <20190829062340.GB3047@infradead.org> <20190829063955.GA30193@kroah.com> <20190829094136.GA28643@infradead.org> <20190829095019.GA13557@kroah.com> <20190829103749.GA13661@infradead.org> <20190829111810.GA23393@kroah.com> <20190829151144.GJ23584@kadam> <20190829152757.GA125003@architecture4> <20190829154346.GK23584@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.106) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dan, On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:06:25AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/8/29 23:43, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> p.s. There are 2947 (un)likely places in fs/ directory. > > > > I was complaining about you adding new pointless ones, not existing > > ones. The likely/unlikely annotations are supposed to be functional and > > not decorative. I explained this very clearly. > > > > Probably most of the annotations in fs/ are wrong but they are also > > harmless except for the slight messiness. However there are definitely > > some which are important so removing them all isn't a good idea. > > Hi Dan, > > Could you please pick up one positive example using likely and unlikely > correctly? so we can follow the example, rather than removing them all blindly. I'm also curious about that, what is the filesystem or kernel standard about likely/unlikely use (since I didn't find some documented standard so I used in my personal way, I think it is reasonable at least to cover all error handling paths), maybe I'm an _idiot_ as some earlier unfriendly word said somewhere so I'm too stupid to understand the implicit meaning of some document. > > Thanks, > > > > >> If you like, I will delete them all. > > > > But for erofs, I don't think that any of the likely/unlikely calls have > > been thought about so I'm fine with removing all of them in one go. Add a word (just a note), I don't think such kind of "any", "few", "all" words are meaningful without some explicit evidence. (e.g. such as EROFS have few error handling path. I don't think that is true and worth to give many details since EROFS code is here for more than one year.) Yes, EROFS is not prefectly, I have to admit, and I said similar words on other threads for many times if you decide to check each likely/unlikely line by line, I cannot say all unlikely/likely cases I wrote are reasonable (just as bug-free, I think no one can make such guarantee even for new code), but I can say the majority of them are reasonable in my personal understanding of likely/unlikely. And I can fix all your reports in time (but maybe some are not urgent at all.) In addition there will be endless discussions on detailed code since there are many personal tendencies from various people in it, as the saying goes "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. " Anyway, I have sent a patch to kill them all blindly as you like, so I think we can come to an agreement on it, but I still don't fully agree with your "for EROFS, I don't think that any of the likely/unlikely calls have been thought about" conclusion. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > > > . > >