linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

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]

Message-ID: <5775CCA4.9070805@huawei.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:51:32 +0800
From:	wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>
To:	Coly Li <i@...y.li>, <axboe@...com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
CC:	Eric Wheeler <git@...ux.ewheeler.net>, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
	<linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] bcache: update document info

Hi Coly, thanks to your review and comments.

Commit 77b5a08427e875 ("bcache: don't embed 'return' statements in closure macros")
remove the return in continue_at(), so I think we should update the document info
about continue_at().

Thanks!
Yijing.

在 2016/6/29 18:16, Coly Li 写道:
> 在 16/6/22 上午10:12, Yijing Wang 写道:
>> There is no return in continue_at(), update the documentation.
>>
> 
> There are 2 modification of this patch. The first one is about a typo,
> it is correct.
> 
> But I doubt your second modification is proper. The line removed in your
> patch is,
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the
> calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
> 
> I think this is exactly what original author wants to say. It does not
> mean return a value, it means return to the calling function. And the
> bellowed lines explains the reason.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.c |    2 +-
>>  drivers/md/bcache/closure.h |    3 ---
>>  2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> index 9eaf1d6..864e673 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.c
>> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ bool closure_wait(struct closure_waitlist *waitlist, struct closure *cl)
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(closure_wait);
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * closure_sync - sleep until a closure a closure has nothing left to wait on
>> + * closure_sync - sleep until a closure has nothing left to wait on
> 
> Yes, this modification is good.
> 
>>   *
>>   * Sleeps until the refcount hits 1 - the thread that's running the closure owns
>>   * the last refcount.
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> index 782cc2c..f51188d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/closure.h
>> @@ -31,9 +31,6 @@
>>   * passing it, as you might expect, the function to run when nothing is pending
>>   * and the workqueue to run that function out of.
>>   *
>> - * continue_at() also, critically, is a macro that returns the calling function.
>> - * There's good reason for this.
>> - *
>>   * To use safely closures asynchronously, they must always have a refcount while
>>   * they are running owned by the thread that is running them. Otherwise, suppose
>>   * you submit some bios and wish to have a function run when they all complete:
>>
> 
>