linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 41/47] staging/lustre/llite: remove dead code

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:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:16:54 +0000
From:	"Hammond, John" <john.hammond@...el.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 41/47] staging/lustre/llite: remove dead code

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@...cle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:03 AM
> To: Oleg Drokin
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> devel@...verdev.osuosl.org; Drokin, Oleg; Hammond, John
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/47] staging/lustre/llite: remove dead code
> 
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 01:07:05PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> > From: "John L. Hammond" <john.hammond@...el.com>
> >
> > In llite remove unused declarations, parameters, types, and unused,
> > get-only, or set-only structure members. Add static and const
> > qualifiers to declarations where possible.
> >
...
> 
> This is a random grab bag of changes to lots of files.  One thing per
> patch, etc, next time.

OK, granted. But some guidance would be welcome here. For clean-up work like this, do you want a patch that const-corrects one function, a patch that const corrects all functions in a file, or a patch that const corrects all functions in a module? Is it OK to do const and static correction in the same change? Is it OK to do const, static, and dead-code in a single file?

> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> > index 8b55080..7d520d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dcache.c
> > @@ -69,8 +69,7 @@ static void ll_release(struct dentry *de)
> >  		ll_intent_release(lld->lld_it);
> >  		OBD_FREE(lld->lld_it, sizeof(*lld->lld_it));
> >  	}
> > -	LASSERT(lld->lld_cwd_count == 0);
> > -	LASSERT(lld->lld_mnt_count == 0);
> > +
> 
> I'm totally in favour of removing LASSERT() calls...  But is this a
> "set only" struct member?  It's totally unclear from the patch
> description.

Actually it's get only. I can label what's what in the commit messages.

> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> > index 51c5327..1b47774 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/statahead.c
> > @@ -1230,9 +1230,7 @@ do_it:
> >  			 */
> >  			ll_release_page(page, le32_to_cpu(dp->ldp_flags) &
> >  					      LDF_COLLIDE);
> > -			sai->sai_in_readpage = 1;
> >  			page = ll_get_dir_page(dir, pos, &chain);
> > -			sai->sai_in_readpage = 0;
> >  		} else {
> >  			LASSERT(le32_to_cpu(dp->ldp_flags) & LDF_COLLIDE);
> >  			ll_release_page(page, 1);
> > @@ -1563,12 +1561,6 @@ int do_statahead_enter(struct inode *dir, struct
> dentry **dentryp,
> >  			return entry ? 1 : -EAGAIN;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		/* if statahead is busy in readdir, help it do post-work */
> > -		while (!ll_sa_entry_stated(entry) &&
> > -		       sai->sai_in_readpage &&
> > -		       !sa_received_empty(sai))
> > -			ll_post_statahead(sai);
> > -
> >  		if (!ll_sa_entry_stated(entry)) {
> >  			sai->sai_index_wait = entry->se_index;
> >  			lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTR(cfs_time_seconds(30), NULL,
> 
> What is this change about really?  I've already waded through 1271 lines
> of random changes at this point and now I have to figure out what
> ll_post_statahead() does and why we don't need to call it now?
> 
> Anyways, please explain this change.

It looks like this change got squished together with something else when it was pushed to staging. I've asked to Oleg check. In the original change, sai_in_readpage was never set. Hence it was easy to see that the if statement was dead code. Sorry for the confusion.

Best,

John

--
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/