| Message ID | 20230724121934.1406807-1-arnd@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: remove unused pages_processed variable | expand |
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: Hmm, I thought I had fixed this up, but obviously that version didn't end up in for-next, probably due to a faul on my side.. Looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
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> > --- > 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_space *mapping, > pgoff_t start_index = start >> PAGE_SHIFT; > pgoff_t end_index = end >> PAGE_SHIFT; > pgoff_t index = start_index; > - unsigned long pages_processed = 0; > struct folio_batch fbatch; > int i; > > @@ -226,7 +225,6 @@ static void __process_pages_contig(struct address_space *mapping, > > process_one_page(fs_info, &folio->page, locked_page, > page_ops, start, end); > - pages_processed += folio_nr_pages(folio); > } > folio_batch_release(&fbatch); > cond_resched(); > -- > 2.39.2 >
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:49 PM 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_space *mapping, > > pgoff_t start_index = start >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > pgoff_t end_index = end >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > pgoff_t index = start_index; > > - unsigned long pages_processed = 0; > > struct folio_batch fbatch; > > int i; > > > > @@ -226,7 +225,6 @@ static void __process_pages_contig(struct address_space *mapping, > > > > process_one_page(fs_info, &folio->page, locked_page, > > page_ops, start, end); > > - pages_processed += folio_nr_pages(folio); > > } > > folio_batch_release(&fbatch); > > cond_resched(); > > -- > > 2.39.2 > >
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:45:27AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 2:49 PM 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. Fix folded to the original patch, thanks.
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_space *mapping, pgoff_t start_index = start >> PAGE_SHIFT; pgoff_t end_index = end >> PAGE_SHIFT; pgoff_t index = start_index; - unsigned long pages_processed = 0; struct folio_batch fbatch; int i; @@ -226,7 +225,6 @@ static void __process_pages_contig(struct address_space *mapping, process_one_page(fs_info, &folio->page, locked_page, page_ops, start, end); - pages_processed += folio_nr_pages(folio); } folio_batch_release(&fbatch); cond_resched();