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: <c6a0eb8d-ad51-01b1-bc17-758acc37f216@acm.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:55:34 -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 09:42, John Garry wrote:
> On 17/06/2022 17:33, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 6/17/22 03:55, John Garry wrote:
>>> @@ -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?
> 
> It's not totally necessary. Since local variable 'reserved' would now 
> only be used once I thought it was better to get rid of it.
> 
> I can keep it if you really think that is better.

I'd prefer that these changes are either left out or that these are 
moved into a separate patch. I think that will make this patch series 
easier to review.

Thanks,

Bart.