linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] md/raid5: Make common label for schedule/retry in raid5_make

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:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:03:49 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Martin Oliveira <Martin.Oliveira@...eticom.com>,
        David Sloan <David.Sloan@...eticom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] md/raid5: Make common label for schedule/retry in
 raid5_make_request()

On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:45:07AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Cleanup the code to make a common label for the schedule,
> prepare_to_wait() and retry path. This drops the do_prepare boolean.
> 
> This requires moveing the prepare_to_wait() above the
> read_seqcount_begin() call on the retry path. However there's no
> appearant requirement for ordering between these two calls.
> 
> This should hopefully be easier to read rather than following the
> extra do_prepare boolean, but it will also be used in a subsequent
> patch to add more code common to all schedule() calls.

Hm.  Maybe it is marginally better, but I always hate gotos inside
of loop bodys.  What prevents us from factoring most of the loop
body into a helper function?