linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv5 3/7] zram: rework recompress target selection strategy

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: <20241001084057.GG11458@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 17:40:57 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/7] zram: rework recompress target selection strategy

On (24/10/01 10:42), Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:09:08AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > +static struct zram_pp_slot *select_pp_slot(struct zram_pp_ctl *ctl)
> > +{
> > +	struct zram_pp_slot *pps = NULL;
> > +	s32 idx = NUM_PP_BUCKETS - 1;
> > +
> > +	/* The higher the bucket id the more optimal slot post-processing is */
> > +	while (idx > 0) {
> 
> Why is this not idx >= 0?  Why skip the first bucket?

That's a typo, thanks for spotting this.  Mind if I send a quick
fixup.patch online liner to Andrew?

Theoretically, we can't do any reasonable post-processing on slots
from bucket 0 (yet), because that bucket is for objects smaller than
64 bytes, but technically we should not skip it.