linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/20] mm: zswap: function ordering: pool refcounting

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: <CAKEwX=P6YqKzVMzZiTry8UafSFnpnvLxJekeP3B03oy3uDyg0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 15:23:08 -0800
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/20] mm: zswap: function ordering: pool refcounting

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 3:23 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:13:30PM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 5:42 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchgorg> wrote:
> > >
> > > Move pool refcounting functions into the pool section. First the
> > > destroy functions, then the get and put which uses them.
> > >
> > > __zswap_pool_empty() has an upward reference to the global
> > > zswap_pools, to sanity check it's not the currently active pool that's
> > > being freed. That gets the forward decl for zswap_pool_cuyrrent().
> >
> > nit: zswap_pool_cuyrrent() -> zswap_pool_current() :-)
>
> Whoops, my bad.
>
> Andrew, would you mind removing that typo inside your copy?
>
> > Also, would it make sense to move zswap_pool_current() above
> > __zswap_pool_empty() to get rid of the forward declaration? I guess
> > it's now grouped with current_get() etc. - those don't seem to use the
> > empty check, so maybe they can also go above __zswap_pool_empty()?
>
> There is a grouping to these functions:
>
> - low-level functions that create and destroy individual struct zswap_pool
>   (create, destroy, get, release, empty, put)
> - high-level functions that operate on pool collections, i.e. zswap_pools
>   (current, last, find)
>
> They were actually already grouped like that, just in the reverse
> order. The only way to avoid ALL forward decls would be to interleave
> the layers, but I think the grouping makes sense so I wanted to
> preserve that. I went with low to high ordering, and forward decl the
> odd one where a low-level function does one high-level sanity check.
>
> Does that make sense?

Makes sense to me - just double checking :)
Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>