linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: tests: polish ifdefs around testing helper
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 16:20:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180914142051.GH5847@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180911191447.GA26631@vader>

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:14:47PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > The unlikely can go away, sure.
> > 
> > I would still like to remove the test_bit call when tests are compiled
> > out. There are about 10 calls to btrfs_is_testing in various core
> > functions, followed by further statements. This would have a
> > (negligible) runtime penalty but generates effectively unused code on
> > production builds.
> > 
> > The static inline function returning 0 allows to optimize out the unused
> > code, so smaller code, fewer inctructions, etc.
> 
> Absolutely, I just mean that the CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS
> version can be cleaner:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS
> static inline int btrfs_is_testing(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> {
> 	return test_bit(BTRFS_FS_STATE_DUMMY_FS_INFO, &fs_info->fs_state);
> }
> #else
> static inline int btrfs_is_testing(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> {
> 	return 0;
> }
> #endif
> 
> I find `if (1) return 1; else return 0;` really icky.

I see what you mean, will fix it.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-14 19:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-10 17:22 [PATCH 0/4] Self-test cleanups David Sterba
2018-09-10 17:22 ` [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: tests: add separate stub for find_lock_delalloc_range David Sterba
2018-09-10 23:40   ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-11  8:50     ` David Sterba
2018-09-14 16:38     ` [PATCH 1/4 v2] " David Sterba
2018-09-17 17:43       ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-10 17:22 ` [PATCH 2/4] btrfs: tests: move testing members of struct btrfs_root to the end David Sterba
2018-09-10 23:37   ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-10 17:22 ` [PATCH 3/4] btrfs: tests: group declarations of self-test helpers David Sterba
2018-09-10 23:41   ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-10 17:22 ` [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: tests: polish ifdefs around testing helper David Sterba
2018-09-10 23:43   ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-11  9:22     ` David Sterba
2018-09-11 19:14       ` Omar Sandoval
2018-09-14 14:20         ` David Sterba [this message]
2018-09-14 16:42         ` [PATCH 4/4 v2] " David Sterba
2018-09-17 17:40           ` Omar Sandoval

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180914142051.GH5847@twin.jikos.cz \
    --to=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=osandov@osandov.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).