[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810310958400.13290@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ring-buffer: add paranoid checks for loops
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * This should normally only loop twice. But because the
> > + * start of the reader inserts an empty page, it causes
> > + * a case where we will loop three times. There should be no
> > + * reason to loop four times (that I know of).
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(paranoid > 2)) {
> > + RB_WARN_ON(cpu_buffer, 1);
> > + reader = NULL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + paranoid++;
>
> ok, the explanations look nice now.
>
> A small nit - the above comment suggests that looping 4 times is the
> anomaly - still the test is for paranoid > 2 ?
Yes, that's because the variable started at 0. So > 2 really means the
loop iterated more than 3.
My last patch changed it to be a bit easier to understand...
if (unlikely(++nr_loops > 3)) {
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists