linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] resource: Avoid unnecessary resource tree walking in __region

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: <ZxnvyIme98Q8ey1c@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:57:12 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] resource: Avoid unnecessary resource tree walking in
 __region_intersects()

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 02:07:52PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:06:37AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:
> > > > On 10.10.24 08:55, Huang Ying wrote:

...

> > > > 	for ((_p) = (_root)->child; (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(_root, _p))
> > > 
> > > Yes.  This can improve code readability.
> > > 
> > > A possible issue is that "_root" will be evaluated twice in above macro
> > > definition.  IMO, this should be avoided.
> > 
> > Ideally, yes. But how many for_each type of macros you see that really try hard
> > to achieve that? I believe we shouldn't worry right now about this and rely on
> > the fact that root is the given variable. Or do you have an example of what you
> > suggested in the other reply, i.e. where it's an evaluation of the heavy call?
> > 
> > > Do you have some idea about
> > > how to do that?  Something like below?
> > > 
> > > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p)                                \
> > > 	for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = (_p) = (__root)->child; \
> > > 	     __p && (_p); (_p) = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p))
> > 
> > This is a bit ugly :-( I would avoid ugliness as long as we have no problem to
> > solve (see above).
> 
> Using a local defined variable to avoid double evaluation is standard
> practice. I do not understand "avoid ugliness as long as we have no problem to
> solve", the problem to solve will be if someone accidentally does
> something like "for_each_resource_descendant(root++, res)". *That* will
> be a problem when someone finally realizes that the macro is hiding a
> double evaluation.

Can you explain, why do we need __p and how can we get rid of that?
I understand the part of the local variable for root.

> So no, this proposal is not "ugly", it is a best practice. See the
> definition of min_not_zero() for example.

I know that there are a lot of macros that look uglier that this one.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko