linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb.c: remove dead store in demote_size

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]

Message-ID: <356bc080-703a-ab45-f6a0-9c7cdcc8abdc@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 15:46:45 -0700
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Nghia Le <nghialm78@...il.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb.c: remove dead store in demote_size_show()

On 10/3/21 8:44 PM, Nghia Le wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 07:36:54PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> On 10/3/21 6:54 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:41:13PM +0700, Nghia Le wrote:
>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct hstate *h;
>>>> -	unsigned long demote_size;
>>>>  	int nid;
>>>>  
>>>>  	h = kobj_to_hstate(kobj, &nid);
>>>> -	demote_size = h->demote_order;
>>>>  
>>>>  	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%lukB\n",
>>>>  			(unsigned long)(PAGE_SIZE << h->demote_order) / SZ_1K);
>>>
>>> I'd suggest this function would look better written as:
>>>
>>> 	int nid;
>>> 	struct hstate *h = kobj_to_hstate(kobj, &nid);
>>> 	unsigned long demote_size = (PAGE_SIZE << h->demote_order) / SZ_1K;
>>>
>>> 	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%lukB\n", demote_size);
>>>
> Thanks Matthew for the clean code.
>>
>> Thank you Nghia Le for spotting this, and thank you Matthew for the
>> suggestion.
>>
>> This is still just in Andrew's tree and subject to modification before
>> the next merge window.  I am still expecting additional comments on the
>> series.
>>
>> If another version of the series is needed, I will include Matthew's
>> suggestion.   If not, I will ask Andrew how he would prefer to fold in
>> the changes.
>> -- 
>> Mike Kravetz
> Thanks Mike, so we will wait further comments from Andrew and others.

Yes, I received suggestions for other improvements to the patch which
contains this code.  I will be putting together another version of the
series with at least these changes.

Thanks,
-- 
Mike Kravetz