linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for isolate

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]

Message-ID: <76f1e8d2-1ef0-4317-061b-c7de33f20626@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:06:44 +0800
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
        naoya.horiguchi@....com, linmiaohe@...wei.com, david@...hat.com,
        osalvador@...e.de, willy@...radead.org, damon@...ts.linux.dev,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: hugetlb: change to return bool for
 isolate_hugetlb()



On 2/15/2023 2:21 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 02/14/23 18:07, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:03:24 +0000 SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:59:31 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now the isolate_hugetlb() only returns 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not
>>>> care about the negative value, thus we can convert the isolate_hugetlb()
>>>> to return a boolean value to make code more clear when checking the
>>>> hugetlb isolation state. Moreover converts 2 users which will consider
>>>> the negative value returned by isolate_hugetlb().
>>>>
>>>> No functional changes intended.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/linux/hugetlb.h |  6 +++---
>>>>   mm/hugetlb.c            | 12 ++++++++----
>>>>   mm/memory-failure.c     |  2 +-
>>>>   mm/mempolicy.c          |  2 +-
>>>>   mm/migrate.c            |  2 +-
>>>>   5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>>> index df6dd624ccfe..5f5e4177b2e0 100644
>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> index 53010a142e7f..c5136fa48638 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> @@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ static int add_page_for_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>>   		if (PageHead(page)) {
>>>>   			err = isolate_hugetlb(page_folio(page), pagelist);
>>>>   			if (!err)
>>>> -				err = 1;
>>>> +				err = -EBUSY;
>>>
>>> Again, I think this is confusing.  'err' is 'bool', not 'int'.
>>
>> I mean, 'err' is not 'bool' but 'int', sorry.  See? This confuses me ;)
>>
> 
> Yes,
> in the case here (and elsewhere) I like David's suggestion of using a separate
> bool such as 'isolated' to capture the return value of the isolate function.
> Then, the statement:
> 
> 	err = isolated ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> 
> would be pretty clear.

Yes, much better, will do. Thanks.