linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] writeback: factor out balance_wb

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: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:09:22 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] writeback: factor out balance_wb_limits to remove
 repeated code

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:39:18PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> > Isn't this a bit nasty? The helper skips updating states because it knows
> > the caller is not going to use them? I'm not sure the slight code reduction
> > justifies the added subtlety.
> 
> It's a general rule that wb should not be limited if the wb is in freerun state.
> So I think it's intuitive to obey the rule in both balance_wb_limits and it's
> caller in which case balance_wb_limits and it's caller should stop to do anything
> when freerun state of wb is first seen.
> But no insistant on this...

Hmm... can you at least add comments pointing out that if freerun, the
limits fields are invalid?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun