Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230724121934.1406807-1-arnd@kernel.org> <ZMBDWbHiJVOt03u5@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZMBDWbHiJVOt03u5@google.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 09:45:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdm9CS0FRrWA9LaWw74enydbTMFUk_WYWXJvNxgLwQBzOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove unused pages_processed variable
To:     Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>,
        Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, linux@leemhuis.info
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:49=E2=80=AFPM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 02:19:15PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > The only user of pages_processed was removed, so it's now a local write=
-only
> > variable that can be eliminated as well:
> >
> > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:214:16: error: variable 'pages_processed' set but =
not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> >
> > Fixes: 9480af8687200 ("btrfs: split page locking out of __process_pages=
_contig")
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202307241541.8w52nEnt-lkp=
@intel.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> Thanks for the patch!
> Reported-by: kernelci.org bot <bot@kernelci.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/64c00cd4.630a0220.6ad79.0eac@mx.google=
.com/
> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

Friendly ping the btrfs maintainers to please pick this up.  Our CI
for linux-next has been red over this for longer than I like, and it's
giving me nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, and...well...
https://youtu.be/d8InOVEsMlU

>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > index c0440a0988c9a..121edea2cfe85 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > @@ -211,7 +211,6 @@ static void __process_pages_contig(struct address_s=
pace *mapping,
> >       pgoff_t start_index =3D start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >       pgoff_t end_index =3D end >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >       pgoff_t index =3D start_index;
> > -     unsigned long pages_processed =3D 0;
> >       struct folio_batch fbatch;
> >       int i;
> >
> > @@ -226,7 +225,6 @@ static void __process_pages_contig(struct address_s=
pace *mapping,
> >
> >                       process_one_page(fs_info, &folio->page, locked_pa=
ge,
> >                                        page_ops, start, end);
> > -                     pages_processed +=3D folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >               }
> >               folio_batch_release(&fbatch);
> >               cond_resched();
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >


--=20
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers