From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out203-205-221-202.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-202.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9E9F1C860B for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2025 15:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.205.221.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757171655; cv=none; b=GCLNYZoIQ6GiPj1r3e5fJYjNXgodoSWn6tZWCXyBaLqcPwddZRx77XPJrRfE4mMorraIS4bYfA5w2ood6RB95m2oIJyqM8vQ5VldRKAwlIDb/DD88gMQG/rmC00CSI8u1u8jtMAALjCh1Hbb54jTw26UNuv/8Cy1jF5EHt5qDzc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757171655; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wmUfztRX5nD3fOdPlKxX4nL8xn68x2d6zm4zTl6Fhqs=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BykEihbQpwShC/9jxm0uAkDaF6oauhQesVbQpeN4QKS7/3qIh7tYpLfoR5qKFnh/jGwNQHacVaNT4QM/gPJcZO1ocpFYOUTqdH/tqIXS6tHs3x9vvMmNCieIo4aeZbxo/UpZptlG82smbryZS3x4zE0TafUms6HLyO4GgId/USk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foxmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foxmail.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com header.i=@foxmail.com header.b=DgQxAKLf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.205.221.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foxmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foxmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com header.i=@foxmail.com header.b="DgQxAKLf" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1757171642; bh=wmUfztRX5nD3fOdPlKxX4nL8xn68x2d6zm4zTl6Fhqs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=DgQxAKLfFEUUmoaJIwrfJ7Jo59GnS2g905k4FbGOOM/aVw5wEi385JapxQ8bPYnKG QytheVy+XXtwlUlPgwSS5uNyoUPRnOaBcSdRRDuZ908cbRIsUAEbMKmCrnUwsbz79O Qls5ClGRZ3uWYVPG/Q43MfNXFQL3eCVGqGs6CNVM= Received: from zm.. ([2408:8340:a2e:f9b0:20c:29ff:fe69:94c7]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrsza56-0.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 3809F0EF; Sat, 06 Sep 2025 23:14:00 +0800 X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1757171640tfgg6490c Message-ID: X-QQ-XMAILINFO: MwP4Bu21pARcKqVk3VrIPiTRO9UHcDi7G2232LhBM6+V319dkLRGggADrn5tBJ Qk97gZ+Naa6p4hoXxLb8r++EL/ZHF27trB0ms5ivR/uvEJ1Cib1bhzjmTgt+WSEKHrI8U3l4cv7P X/Jh3jQf7LlF2s2PkZQD6EtyPPm17LSUe6LaFd8Hu+o3yo+R4LxotQ/FZwXrmkG22gpn6AUqvzgh PMYJEXqUmqhKcwE5Vq9JzPm2lLGarlvzQUyl0O8QOZiCI3KA4qSdqQ2oPPMJCT0CitwZLbKNU4VE RTOn1K7SCcXvLDlhZwV14kWemAG0EZYrni9ee/0mXcH3CecGBAHXbEMR9Cf0BWZlWGUjlV/VqSdt 029EBDtU9JAHWxrizB+YQn4ASW7FP6xv+l3VBmA7E1U7HyzG0mJPnJi4xQtEBy8p4I9jXbsfjvwt Z9Ls7bHcerlB3Zhbyw6yWUTZQkRtGsSVQfxH0gqRtoOrWMDN2bhgdQv8LGMNmUMAiISdfPImFvbc NRr+wNUTd6DxIbX6J/3fAT98CXlK8r5keZ/V6IslfX5TCQhexkl0HCj2S2BMsyo4JHgc1zGkbZrF mV+iSdQg/BVnkARnHBvPVj/perPuVrkOfVwO+Cwb255Xv48FL52U+GTMH68nK2f+QwTrK9iPmYxJ M4OWf+tuKxvMgOeSLX6KzYRgzOcK1KcURkCu7tyVt25ciQ5izW3mY5a4iXOaXhHhIpsEvWvTtChj T0b3Zqigwk9jPJJDLXLZNi1RecQnBH1kbuEOSE4tVixsXs++TLHRzg61YNGyKYnvqJbxNQXg8dlK X6RfKgUz8j200dQMsJ9MPfm3G/Bx1mlvcbqGy/pknWc4O88Tee1jdRNM4odWTwojwspqwqVyKbD5 vlTRAi7jHMY/h0D95FUaBrEnq1tOYWdsxUAgnpMwyrcQik1F0x9+7hbnF6zAEDH3Zw7VuRqL9lL3 x5n2a+ykhnxumQ4D8HMHEEdaA0ZZzboxtBx0HU9LX6eRUA1EW1vpXzVlAnWHRQlt2B7vN2cHcBnL BzREKhADSdahwmnN3SMQDMvrmNLHyHeEdIGUcfJt2seic8wnBzrVfM86JNeTVr4Gv1UA2bZkyw/9 quvC+dyXIC397rlk5qCfT+Tnz1sw== X-QQ-XMRINFO: OD9hHCdaPRBwq3WW+NvGbIU= From: zhoumin To: hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, teczm@foxmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfat:avoid unnecessary check Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 23:13:49 +0800 X-OQ-MSGID: <20250906151400.1913598-1-teczm@foxmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <87plc4n9e5.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp> References: <87plc4n9e5.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=y Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Hirofumi > Hm, IS_FREE() checks 0 and DELETED_FLAG, isn't it? Yes, you're absolutely right. That was my mistake—sorry about that. Please disregard that part. > OK, thanks. I got the reason. > However I would prefer to keep the current code, for readability and > future changes, and explicitly check those time flags if there is no > measurable improvement. I understand your preference. That said, since fat_truncate_time already checks the flags and handles them appropriately, I still feel the double-check might be redundant. That said, I respect your decision and am okay with keeping it as is. Thanks, zhoumin