linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <017cae1e-b45f-04fd-d34c-22ae736b28e5@acm.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:33:11 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, hch@....de, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, satishkh@...co.com,
        sebaddel@...co.com, kartilak@...co.com
Cc:     linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, mpi3mr-linuxdrv.pdl@...adcom.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        nbd@...er.debian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: Drop 'reserved' member of busy_tag_iter_fn

On 6/17/22 03:55, John Garry wrote:
> We no longer use the 'reserved' member in for any iter function so it
                                          ^^^^^^
One of these two words probably should be removed.

> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> index 2dcd738c6952..b8cc8b41553f 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> @@ -266,7 +266,6 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>   	struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = iter_data->hctx;
>   	struct request_queue *q = iter_data->q;
>   	struct blk_mq_tag_set *set = q->tag_set;
> -	bool reserved = iter_data->reserved;
>   	struct blk_mq_tags *tags;
>   	struct request *rq;
>   	bool ret = true;
> @@ -276,7 +275,7 @@ static bool bt_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>   	else
>   		tags = hctx->tags;
>   
> -	if (!reserved)
> +	if (!iter_data->reserved)
>   		bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags;
>   	/*
>   	 * We can hit rq == NULL here, because the tagging functions

Is the above change really necessary?

> @@ -337,12 +336,11 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
>   {
>   	struct bt_tags_iter_data *iter_data = data;
>   	struct blk_mq_tags *tags = iter_data->tags;
> -	bool reserved = iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_RESERVED;
>   	struct request *rq;
>   	bool ret = true;
>   	bool iter_static_rqs = !!(iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS);
>   
> -	if (!reserved)
> +	if (!(iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_RESERVED))
>   		bitnr += tags->nr_reserved_tags;
>   
>   	/*

Same question here: is the above change really necessary?

Thanks,

Bart.