linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/12] md/raid5: Refactor 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:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:08:20 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Martin Oliveira <Martin.Oliveira@...eticom.com>,
        David Sloan <David.Sloan@...eticom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/12] md/raid5: Refactor raid5_make_request loop



On 2022-04-26 19:32, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/21/22 3:54 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Break immediately if raid5_get_active_stripe() returns NULL and deindent
>> the rest of the loop. Annotate this check with an unlikely().
>>
>> This makes the code easier to read and reduces the indentation level.
>>
>> No functional changes intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe<logang@...tatee.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/md/raid5.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>   1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> index 97b23c18402b..cda6857e6207 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>> @@ -5906,68 +5906,69 @@ static bool raid5_make_request(struct mddev
>> *mddev, struct bio * bi)
> 
> ...
> 
>> +        if (unlikely(!sh)) {
>> +            /* cannot get stripe, just give-up */
>> +            bi->bi_status = BLK_STS_IOERR;
>> +            break;
>> +        }
> 
> 
> Nit, I would suggest to keep below original comment.

But the original comment was plainly wrong...

Logan