On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:30:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > On 5.06.2018 17:24, David Sterba wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:14:51PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >>> and then the whole callchain of copy_nocow_pages continues. > >> > >> Understood. > >> I could go this method. > >> > >> However I'm a little concerned about such "if (0 &&" usage. > >> > >> Although with gcc 8.1 it works without any warning, it still looks > >> pretty strange, as compiler could one day detect such dead branch and > >> find copy_nocow_pages() is never used. > > > > I've checked that this does not produce any warnings, gcc 7.3.1. The > > condition looks strange but does what we want. The whole series will be > > in 4.18, the first patch in stable versions. If gcc does not warn today, > > it will not in the future in any of the versions. > > WOuld it be possible to then take Qu's patch which deletes a lot of code > for 4.19?
Of course, the deletion part will follow, we just need to split it so the patches do not cause backporting conflicts. Reading what I wrote above, it's not clearl but it was the intention. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
