[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6867439a-b995-86e7-6136-bcb8709eeb90@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:56:31 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
Cristian Birsan <cristian.birsan@...rochip.com>,
Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"open list:USB GADGET/PERIPHERAL SUBSYSTEM"
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/26] usb: gadget: s3c-hsudc: remove usage of list
iterator past the loop body
On 09/03/2022 18:36, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>> On 9. Mar 2022, at 18:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 18:18, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>> If the list representing the request queue does not contain the expected
>>> request, the value of the list_for_each_entry() iterator will not point
>>> to a valid structure. To avoid type confusion in such case, the list
>>> iterator scope will be limited to the list_for_each_entry() loop.
>>>
>>> In preparation to limiting scope of the list iterator to the list traversal
>>> loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found request object [1].
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YhdfEIwI4EdtHdym@kroah.com/
>>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/s3c-hsudc.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/s3c-hsudc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/s3c-hsudc.c
>>> index 89f1f8c9f02e..bf803e013458 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/s3c-hsudc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/s3c-hsudc.c
>>> @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ static int s3c_hsudc_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>>> {
>>> struct s3c_hsudc_ep *hsep = our_ep(_ep);
>>> struct s3c_hsudc *hsudc = hsep->dev;
>>> - struct s3c_hsudc_req *hsreq;
>>> + struct s3c_hsudc_req *hsreq = NULL, *iter;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>
>>> hsep = our_ep(_ep);
>>> @@ -886,11 +886,13 @@ static int s3c_hsudc_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>>>
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&hsudc->lock, flags);
>>>
>>> - list_for_each_entry(hsreq, &hsep->queue, queue) {
>>> - if (&hsreq->req == _req)
>>> - break;
>>> + list_for_each_entry(iter, &hsep->queue, queue) {
>>> + if (&iter->req != _req)
>>> + continue;
>>> + hsreq = iter;
>>> + break;
>>
>> You have in the loop both continue and break, looks a bit complicated.
>> Why not simpler:
>>
>> if (&iter->req == _req) {
>> hsreq = iter;
>> break;
>> }
>
> Ultimately I changed this based on the feedback from Linus
> (Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/CAHk-=wheru6rEfzC2wuO9k03PRF6s3nhxryCAnwR5bzKwPV2ww@mail.gmail.com/).
Not cleaner to me at all, but it's all personal opinion. :)
>>
>> ?
>> Less code, typical (expected) code flow when looking for something in
>> the list. Is your approach related to some speculative execution?
>
> no relation to speculative execution.
>
> I have no preference for one over the other, so I'll just change it to
> however it is desired.
>
> It would just be great to have a (somewhat) consistent way so I can prepare
> the rest of the patch sets accordingly.
>
Yeah, I understand. The code itself looks good, so:
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists