[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b49f6f7e-16db-e3e0-188a-7ed848a9d43d@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 17:11:35 +0800
From: Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
vishal.l.verma@...el.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linan122@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] block/badblocks: change some members of badblocks
to bool
在 2023/6/21 22:02, Ashok Raj 写道:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:20:49AM +0800, linan666@...weicloud.com wrote:
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>>
>> "changed" and "unacked_exist" are used as boolean type. Change the type
>> of them to bool. And reorder fields to reduce memory hole.
>
> minor nit: If you use a .gitorderfile to list .h before .c it will help review them in
> order.
>
I will config my git.
> I don't know if its even worth doing this manual compaction unless you are
> storing the entire struct in some flash or its in a sensitive cache
> thrashing structure.
>
Yeah, it is worthless to manual compaction.
> bool is useful that it makes the code easier to read and can eliminate some
> class of bugs that you would otherwise use !! operator.
>
>>
>> No functional changed intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> block/badblocks.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> include/linux/badblocks.h | 10 +++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
>> index 3afb550c0f7b..1b4caa42c5f1 100644
>> --- a/block/badblocks.c
>> +++ b/block/badblocks.c
>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static void badblocks_update_acked(struct badblocks *bb)
>> }
>>
>> if (!unacked)
>> - bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> + bb->unacked_exist = false;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -302,9 +302,9 @@ int badblocks_set(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - bb->changed = 1;
>> + bb->changed = true;
>> if (!acknowledged)
>> - bb->unacked_exist = 1;
>> + bb->unacked_exist = true;
>> else
>> badblocks_update_acked(bb);
>> write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&bb->lock, flags);
>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ int badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors)
>> }
>>
>> badblocks_update_acked(bb);
>> - bb->changed = 1;
>> + bb->changed = true;
>> out:
>> write_sequnlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>> return rv;
>> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ void ack_all_badblocks(struct badblocks *bb)
>> return;
>> write_seqlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>>
>> - if (bb->changed == 0 && bb->unacked_exist) {
>> + if (bb->changed == false && bb->unacked_exist) {
>
> if (!bb->changed && bb->unacked_exist)
I will change it in next version.
>
>
>> u64 *p = bb->page;
>> int i;
>>
>> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ void ack_all_badblocks(struct badblocks *bb)
>> p[i] = BB_MAKE(start, len, 1);
>> }
>> }
>> - bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> + bb->unacked_exist = false;
>> }
>> write_sequnlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>> }
>> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ ssize_t badblocks_show(struct badblocks *bb, char *page, int unack)
>> length << bb->shift);
>> }
>> if (unack && len == 0)
>> - bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> + bb->unacked_exist = false;
>>
>> if (read_seqretry(&bb->lock, seq))
>> goto retry;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/badblocks.h b/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> index 2426276b9bd3..c2723f97d22d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> @@ -27,15 +27,15 @@
>> struct badblocks {
>> struct device *dev; /* set by devm_init_badblocks */
>> int count; /* count of bad blocks */
>> - int unacked_exist; /* there probably are unacknowledged
>> - * bad blocks. This is only cleared
>> - * when a read discovers none
>> - */
>> int shift; /* shift from sectors to block size
>> * a -ve shift means badblocks are
>> * disabled.*/
>> + bool unacked_exist; /* there probably are unacknowledged
>> + * bad blocks. This is only cleared
>> + * when a read discovers none
>
> read of what?
"... when a read of unacknowledged bad blocks discovers none"
Would this be better?
Thank for your suggestion.
>
>> + */
>> + bool changed;
>> u64 *page; /* badblock list */
>> - int changed;
>> seqlock_t lock;
>> sector_t sector;
>> sector_t size; /* in sectors */
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>
> .
--
Thanks,
Nan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists