linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/8] mm: Add specialized fallback zonelist for coherent device memory nodes

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: <580EB50F.3070207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:57:43 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, js1304@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mgorman@...e.de,
        minchan@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bsingharora@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/8] mm: Add specialized fallback zonelist for coherent
 device memory nodes

On 10/24/2016 10:40 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 09:31 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COHERENT_DEVICE
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Isolation requiring coherent device memory node's zones
>> +		 * should not be part of any other node's fallback zonelist
>> +		 * but it's own fallback list.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (isolated_cdm_node(node) && (pgdat->node_id != node))
>> +			continue;
>> +#endif
> 
> Total nit:  Why do you need an #ifdef here when you had
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COHERENT_DEVICE
> +#define node_cdm(nid)          (NODE_DATA(nid)->coherent_device)
> +#define set_cdm_isolation(nid) (node_cdm(nid) = 1)
> +#define clr_cdm_isolation(nid) (node_cdm(nid) = 0)
> +#define isolated_cdm_node(nid) (node_cdm(nid) == 1)
> +#else
> +#define set_cdm_isolation(nid) ()
> +#define clr_cdm_isolation(nid) ()
> +#define isolated_cdm_node(nid) (0)
> +#endif
> 
> in your last patch?

Right, the "if" condition with an "&&" as a whole would have evaluated
to be false. Hence the "ifdef" is not required. Will change it next time
around. Thanks for pointing out.