From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751232AbaK2OvE (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:51:04 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:62409 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750862AbaK2OvC (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:51:02 -0500 Message-ID: <5479DD48.6030508@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:50:48 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OGAWA Hirofumi CC: Julia Lawall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle Subject: Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5467B12C.4010602@users.sourceforge.net> <54796B5E.5040707@users.sourceforge.net> <87sih22sn8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:31sEuQds3mibU7PG/JDdE8rsFlWqE0CzBUTF0N/vX6JOj6P4JQ8 gD72ZmKBUOcu/YxytaNa/fLtKmfW8ZhXwSrJhsZHXViia7qrfq3sEys+xxzia99Oe9a8Dzi sPvEorH1WiAXeGLM36tskCRuSuyViGe6/hGnKKqmYvAzruKIl7lJ5Jx9PfzNXFYAZ9bYvcF 0z0gMx9IyD3pAU4JjspFQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize > on this error path), isn't it? I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided. > Increasing the chance of bugs and bothers developers for analyzer sounds > like strange. There are different opinions around source code clarity. > (And we are initializing those for avoiding to be bothered by choosing > correct label. Pointer initialisation is convenient and safe in some use cases, isn't it? > If we really care micro optimize, initialization of those should not > be required and should not be touched on other paths, and gcc can warn > its usage.) I imagine that a software optimiser can eventually perform better job if unneeded statements could be omitted, couldn't it? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:50:48 +0000 Subject: Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection Message-Id: <5479DD48.6030508@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5467B12C.4010602@users.sourceforge.net> <54796B5E.5040707@users.sourceforge.net> <87sih22sn8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize > on this error path), isn't it? I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided. > Increasing the chance of bugs and bothers developers for analyzer sounds > like strange. There are different opinions around source code clarity. > (And we are initializing those for avoiding to be bothered by choosing > correct label. Pointer initialisation is convenient and safe in some use cases, isn't it? > If we really care micro optimize, initialization of those should not > be required and should not be touched on other paths, and gcc can warn > its usage.) I imagine that a software optimiser can eventually perform better job if unneeded statements could be omitted, couldn't it? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:50:48 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection In-Reply-To: <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5467B12C.4010602@users.sourceforge.net> <54796B5E.5040707@users.sourceforge.net> <87sih22sn8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Message-ID: <5479DD48.6030508@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize > on this error path), isn't it? I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided. > Increasing the chance of bugs and bothers developers for analyzer sounds > like strange. There are different opinions around source code clarity. > (And we are initializing those for avoiding to be bothered by choosing > correct label. Pointer initialisation is convenient and safe in some use cases, isn't it? > If we really care micro optimize, initialization of those should not > be required and should not be touched on other paths, and gcc can warn > its usage.) I imagine that a software optimiser can eventually perform better job if unneeded statements could be omitted, couldn't it? Regards, Markus