linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH blktrace v2 04/22] blktrace: change size of action to 64 bits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5f8bb74c-46c6-4462-86fe-4defe25328f0@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:51:15 +0900
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrace@...r.kernel.org,
 John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@....com>,
 Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>,
 Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
 "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktrace v2 04/22] blktrace: change size of action to 64
 bits

On 9/26/25 00:04, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> In order to add the zoned commands to blktrace's actions, the storage size
> needs to be increased to 64bits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>

Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>

One nit below.

> @@ -52,13 +53,13 @@ int add_format_spec(char *option)
>  
>  static inline void fill_rwbs(char *rwbs, struct blk_io_trace *t)
>  {
> -	int w = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_WRITE);
> -	int a = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_AHEAD);
> -	int s = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_SYNC);
> -	int m = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_META);
> -	int d = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_DISCARD);
> -	int f = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_FLUSH);
> -	int u = t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_FUA);
> +	bool w = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_WRITE));
> +	bool a = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_AHEAD));
> +	bool s = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_SYNC));
> +	bool m = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_META));
> +	bool d = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_DISCARD));
> +	bool f = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_FLUSH));
> +	bool u = !!(t->action & BLK_TC_ACT(BLK_TC_FUA));
>  	int i = 0;

It looks like this should be a different patch. Also, I do not think that the
!!() is needed.

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research