[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6409438c-43b7-484c-bf8c-be5f3849ef2f@gmx.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 07:35:29 +1030
From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>
To: Gladyshev Ilya <foxido@...ido.dev>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: make ASSERT no-op in release builds
在 2025/10/31 04:53, Gladyshev Ilya 写道:
> The current definition of `ASSERT(cond)` as `(void)(cond)` is redundant,
> because all checks are without side effects and don't affect code logic.
>
> However, some checks has READ_ONCE in them or other 'compiler-unfriendly'
> behaviour. For example, ASSERT(list_empty) in btrfs_add_dealloc_inode
> was compiled to redundant mov because of this.
>
> This patch replaces ASSERT with BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID for
> !CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT builds.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gladyshev Ilya <foxido@...ido.dev>
>
> ---
> .o size reductions are not that big, for example on defconfig + btrfs
> fs/btrfs/*.o size went from 3280528 to 3277936, so compiler was pretty
> efficient on his own
> ---
> fs/btrfs/messages.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/messages.h b/fs/btrfs/messages.h
> index 4416c165644f..f80fe40a2c2b 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/messages.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/messages.h
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ do { \
> #endif
>
> #else
> -#define ASSERT(cond, args...) (void)(cond)
> +#define ASSERT(cond, args...) BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(cond)
And I do not think it's a good idea to use BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID() here,
most ASSERT()s are checking runtime conditions, I understand you want to
avoid real code generation, but in that case there are more
straightforward solutions, like "do {} while (0)" as no-op.
Thanks,
Qu
> #endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG
>
> base-commit: e53642b87a4f4b03a8d7e5f8507fc3cd0c595ea6
Powered by blists - more mailing lists