linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH V4 1/5] cachefiles: introduce object ondemand state

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: <a9952336-4648-16be-532a-37fd52d67b27@bytedance.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:33:32 +0800
From:   Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@...edance.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Xin Yin <yinxin.x@...edance.com>,
        Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V4 1/5] cachefiles: introduce object ondemand state

Hi David,
Thanks for reviewing.

在 2023/3/28 21:52, David Howells 写道:
> Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@...edance.com> wrote:
> 
>> +enum cachefiles_object_state {
>> +	CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_OBJSTATE_close, /* Anonymous fd closed by daemon or initial state */
>> +	CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_OBJSTATE_open, /* Anonymous fd associated with object is available */
> 
> That looks weird.  Maybe make them all-lowercase?

I'll revise it in next version.
> 
>> @@ -296,6 +302,21 @@ extern void cachefiles_ondemand_clean_object(struct cachefiles_object *object);
>>   extern int cachefiles_ondemand_read(struct cachefiles_object *object,
>>   				    loff_t pos, size_t len);
>>   
>> +#define CACHEFILES_OBJECT_STATE_FUNCS(_state)	\
>> +static inline bool								\
>> +cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_##_state(const struct cachefiles_object *object) \
>> +{												\
>> +	return object->state == CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_OBJSTATE_##_state; \
>> +}												\
>> +												\
>> +static inline void								\
>> +cachefiles_ondemand_set_object_##_state(struct cachefiles_object *object) \
>> +{												\
>> +	object->state = CACHEFILES_ONDEMAND_OBJSTATE_##_state; \
>> +}
>> +
>> +CACHEFILES_OBJECT_STATE_FUNCS(open);
>> +CACHEFILES_OBJECT_STATE_FUNCS(close);
> 
> Or just get rid of the macroisation?  If there are only two states, it doesn't
> save you that much and it means that "make TAGS" won't generate refs for those
> functions and grep won't find them.

Actually there is one more state <reopening> will be introduced in
patch3 and 30+ loc for repeated functions will be added if we drop the 
macro.
Shall I keep using the macro or replace it?
> David