[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 05:23:05 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
Cc: david@...morbit.com, djwong@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
hch@...radead.org, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
ira.weiny@...el.com, willy@...radead.org, vgoyal@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] dax: introduce dax device flag DAXDEV_RECOVERY
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 02:31:45PM -0700, Jane Chu wrote:
> +int dax_prep_recovery(struct dax_device *dax_dev, void **kaddr)
> +{
> + if (dax_recovery_capable(dax_dev)) {
> + set_bit(DAXDEV_RECOVERY, (unsigned long *)kaddr);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + return -EINVAL;
Setting a random bit on a passed in memory address looks a little
dangerous to me.
Also I'd return early for the EINVAL case to make the flow a little
more clear.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists