linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC v4+ hot_track 10/19] vfs: introduce hot func register framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 Nov 2012 00:14:47 +0100
From:	David Sterba <dave@...os.cz>
To:	zwu.kernel@...il.com
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxram@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	david@...morbit.com, tytso@....edu, cmm@...ibm.com,
	wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, wenqing.lz@...bao.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4+ hot_track 10/19] vfs: introduce hot func register
 framework

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:30:52PM +0800, zwu.kernel@...il.com wrote:
> +static struct hot_func_type *hot_func_get(const char *name)
> +{
> +	struct hot_func_type *f, *h = &hot_func_def;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&hot_func_list_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(f, &hot_func_list, list) {
> +		if (!strcmp(f->hot_func_name, name))
> +			h = f;

You probably want to break here

> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&hot_func_list_lock);
> +
> +	return h;
> +}
> +
> +int hot_func_register(struct hot_func_type *h)
> +{
> +	struct hot_func_type *f, *t = NULL;
> +
> +	/* register, don't allow duplicate names */
> +	spin_lock(&hot_func_list_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(f, &hot_func_list, list) {
> +		if (!strcmp(f->hot_func_name, h->hot_func_name))
> +			t = f;

if duplicate names are not allowed, then a warning may make sense to
let us know that something is wrong

> +	}
> +
> +	if (t) {
> +		spin_unlock(&hot_func_list_lock);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	list_add_tail(&h->list, &hot_func_list);
> +	spin_unlock(&hot_func_list_lock);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_func_register);
> --- a/include/linux/hot_tracking.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hot_tracking.h
> @@ -73,6 +75,25 @@ struct hot_range_item {
>  	u32 len; /* length in bytes */
>  };
>  
> +typedef u64 (hot_rw_freq_calc_fn) (struct timespec old_atime,
> +			struct timespec cur_time, u64 old_avg);
> +typedef u32 (hot_temp_calc_fn) (struct hot_freq_data *freq_data);
> +typedef bool (hot_is_obsolete_fn) (struct hot_freq_data *freq_data);

I'm thinking, whether these typedefs are useful, similar ops structures
do not introduce them, also when you pick a struct member names exactly
same as the typedefs:

> +struct hot_func_ops {
> +	hot_rw_freq_calc_fn *hot_rw_freq_calc_fn;
> +	hot_temp_calc_fn *hot_temp_calc_fn;
> +	hot_is_obsolete_fn *hot_is_obsolete_fn;
> +};

My suggestion is to make the types explicit in the structure.

> +/* identifies an hot func type */
> +struct hot_func_type {
> +	char hot_func_name[HOT_NAME_MAX];

'name' would be sufficient IMHO

> +	/* fields provided by specific FS */
> +	struct hot_func_ops ops;
> +	struct list_head list;
> +};

david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html