linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the function interval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8485C2C1-AAC7-404D-9AB0-51E3ED763C0F@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:01:44 +0000
From:	"Xiong, Jinshan" <jinshan.xiong@...el.com>
To:	Monam Agarwal <monamagarwal123@...il.com>
CC:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the function
 interval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval_tree.c


On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Dilger, Andreas <andreas.dilger@...el.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Staging: lustre: Refactor the function interval_erase_color() in /lustre/ldlm/interval_tree.c
>> Date: January 11, 2014 at 1:33:58 PM MST
>> To: Monam Agarwal <monamagarwal123@...il.com>
>> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <andreas.dilger@...el.com>, <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:14:35PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:56:44PM +0530, Monam Agarwal wrote:
>>>>> I took n as a flag to decide whether parent->in_left == node is true
>>>>> or not in the called function.
>>>> 
>>>> So "n" stands for "node"?
>>>> 
>>>>> Should I use some other name for the flag.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Will "flag" be a suitable name?

I’d suggest `bool is_right_child’.

I’ve checked the patch and it looks good. There exists a unit test case for interval tree under lustre/tests/ named it_test.c, please compile it and verify your change.

Jinshan

>> 
>> Ick, no.  You don't want a "flag" to have to determine what the logic is
>> for a given function.  That just causes confusion and makes things
>> really hard to read and understand over time.
>> 
>> This whole function looks like a red/black tree, or something like that.
>> Shouldn't we just be using the in-kernel implementation of this?  And if
>> not, then you really need to get the feedback of the code's original
>> authors as you might be changing the algorithm in ways that could cause
>> big problems.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> greg k-h
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Lustre Software Architect
> Intel Corporation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
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/