[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4bd2e538d70d8acbdc8da7b0fdb05b93e0614e43.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:48:44 +0200
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>, Bart Van Assche
<bvanassche@....org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 33/40] sh: mach-x3proto: optimize ilsel_enable()
Hi Yury,
thanks for your patch!
On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 10:56 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> Simplify ilsel_enable() by using find_and_set_bit().
>
> Geert also pointed the bug in the old implementation:
>
> I don't think the old code worked as intended: the first time
> no free bit is found, bit would have been ILSEL_LEVELS, and
> test_and_set_bit() would have returned false, thus terminating
> the loop, and continuing with an out-of-range bit value? Hence
> to work correctly, bit ILSEL_LEVELS of ilsel_level_map should
> have been initialized to one? Or am I missing something?
>
> The new code does not have that issue.
>
> CC: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
> ---
> arch/sh/boards/mach-x3proto/ilsel.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/sh/boards/mach-x3proto/ilsel.c b/arch/sh/boards/mach-x3proto/ilsel.c
> index f0d5eb41521a..35b585e154f0 100644
> --- a/arch/sh/boards/mach-x3proto/ilsel.c
> +++ b/arch/sh/boards/mach-x3proto/ilsel.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> */
> #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
>
> +#include <linux/find_atomic.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -99,8 +100,8 @@ int ilsel_enable(ilsel_source_t set)
> }
>
> do {
> - bit = find_first_zero_bit(&ilsel_level_map, ILSEL_LEVELS);
> - } while (test_and_set_bit(bit, &ilsel_level_map));
> + bit = find_and_set_bit(&ilsel_level_map, ILSEL_LEVELS);
> + } while (bit >= ILSEL_LEVELS);
>
> __ilsel_enable(set, bit);
I will need to take a closer look at the whole code in ilsel_enable() to understand what's
happening here. If Geert's explanation is correct, it sounds more like you're fixing a bug
and saying you're optimizing the function in the patch subject would sound more like an
euphemism.
Also, I think we should add a Fixes tag if possible in case your patch fixes an actual bug.
I will have a closer look over the weekend.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Powered by blists - more mailing lists