linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dax: Add an enum for specifying dax wakup mode

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:08:17 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtio-fs@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu, jack@...e.cz,
        slp@...hat.com, groug@...d.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dax: Add an enum for specifying dax wakup mode

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:02:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:52:17PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:07:21AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > +enum dax_wake_mode {
> > > > +	WAKE_NEXT,
> > > > +	WAKE_ALL,
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > Why define them in this order when ...
> > > 
> > > > @@ -196,7 +207,7 @@ static void dax_wake_entry(struct xa_state *xas, void *entry, bool wake_all)
> > > >  	 * must be in the waitqueue and the following check will see them.
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> > > > -		__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, wake_all ? 0 : 1, &key);
> > > > +		__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);
> > > 
> > > ... they're used like this?  This is almost as bad as
> > > 
> > > enum bool {
> > > 	true,
> > > 	false,
> > > };
> > 
> > Hi Matthew,
> > 
> > So you prefer that I should switch order of WAKE_NEXT and WAKE_ALL? 
> > 
> > enum dax_wake_mode {
> > 	WAKE_ALL,
> > 	WAKE_NEXT,
> > };
> 
> That, yes.
> 
> > And then do following to wake task.
> > 
> > if (waitqueue_active(wq))
> > 	__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode, &key);
> 
> No, the third argument to __wake_up() is a count, not an enum.  It just so
> happens that '0' means 'all' and we only ever wake up 1 and not, say, 5.
> So the logical way to define the enum is ALL, NEXT which _just happens
> to match_ the usage of __wake_up().

Ok, In that case, I will retain existing code.

__wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, mode == WAKE_ALL ? 0 : 1, &key);

Vivek