On 10/21/2021 4:23 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:10:56PM -0600, Jane Chu wrote:
>> - if (unlikely(is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512,
>> - PFN_PHYS(nr_pages))))
>> + if (unlikely(!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) &&
>> + is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512,
>> + PFN_PHYS(nr_pages))))
>
> The indentation here is pretty messed up. Something like this would
> be move normal:
>
> if (unlikely(!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) &&
> is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512,
> PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))) {
>
Will do.
> but if we don't really need the unlikely we could do an actually
> readable variant:
>
> if (!(flags & DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY) &&
> is_bad_pmem(&pmem->bb, PFN_PHYS(pgoff) / 512, PFN_PHYS(nr_pages)))
>
'unlikely' is needed because 'RWF_RECOVERY_DATA' flag is not
recommended for normal preadv2/pwritev2 usage, it's recommended
only if user is aware of or suspect poison in the range.
thanks,
-jane
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
