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]

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:00:28 +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 Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> 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?

Nevermind, I read the comment to second patch, so the answer is yes. :-)

-- 
 i.