linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unnecessary 'ownlocks' variable.

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:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:33:56 +0000
From:   "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
CC:     "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unnecessary
 'ownlocks' variable.

On Oct 22, 2017, at 18:53, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> Now that the code has been simplified, 'ownlocks' is not
> necessary.
> 
> The loop which sets it exits with 'lock' having the same value as
> 'ownlocks', or pointing to the head of the list if ownlocks is NULL.
> 
> The current code then tests ownlocks and sets 'lock' to exactly the
> value that it currently has.
> 
> So discard 'ownlocks'.
> 
> Also remove unnecessary initialization of 'lock'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>

Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>

> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c |   15 +++------------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index 0bf6dce1c5b1..774d8667769a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -115,8 +115,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
> 	struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
> 	struct ldlm_namespace *ns = ldlm_res_to_ns(res);
> 	struct ldlm_lock *tmp;
> -	struct ldlm_lock *ownlocks = NULL;
> -	struct ldlm_lock *lock = NULL;
> +	struct ldlm_lock *lock;
> 	struct ldlm_lock *new = req;
> 	struct ldlm_lock *new2 = NULL;
> 	enum ldlm_mode mode = req->l_req_mode;
> @@ -140,22 +139,14 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
> 	/* This loop determines where this processes locks start
> 	 * in the resource lr_granted list.
> 	 */
> -	list_for_each_entry(lock, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
> -		if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
> -			ownlocks = lock;
> +	list_for_each_entry(lock, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link)
> +		if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req))
> 			break;
> -		}
> -	}
> 
> 	/* Scan the locks owned by this process to find the insertion point
> 	 * (as locks are ordered), and to handle overlaps.
> 	 * We may have to merge or split existing locks.
> 	 */
> -	if (ownlocks)
> -		lock = ownlocks;
> -	else
> -		lock = list_entry(&res->lr_granted,
> -				  struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
> 	list_for_each_entry_safe_from(lock, tmp, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
> 
> 		if (!ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, new))
> 
> 

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation