linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert get_mem_bw

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: <a263ee49-b987-90e2-c794-4d2af0ce50ca@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:59:17 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
    Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, 
    Maciej Wieczór-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, 
    Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert get_mem_bw_imc() fd
 close to for loop

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> > fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
> > 
> > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> > consistency.
> 
> I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two
> reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is
> obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop
> adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop
> is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0
> and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying
> value.

Hi,

So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops 
instead?

-- 
 i.