Re: [PATCH 3/6] pmem: pmem_dax_direct_access() to honor the DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY flag

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux