On Mon 2020-03-02 14:43:41, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-03-02, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..796257f226ee
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk_ringbuffer.c
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Read the record @id and verify that it is committed and has the sequence
> >>>> + * number @seq. On success, 0 is returned.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Error return values:
> >>>> + * -EINVAL: A committed record @seq does not exist.
> >>>> + * -ENOENT: The record @seq exists, but its data is not available. This is a
> >>>> + * valid record, so readers should continue with the next seq.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static int desc_read_committed(struct prb_desc_ring *desc_ring,
> >>>> + unsigned long id, u64 seq,
> >>>> + struct prb_desc *desc)
> >>>> +{
> >
> > static enum desc_state
> > desc_read_by_seq(struct prb_desc_ring *desc_ring,
> > u64 seq, struct prb_desc *desc)
> > {
> > struct prb_desc *rdesc = to_desc(desc_ring, seq);
> > atomic_long_t *state_var = &rdesc->state_var;
> > id = DESC_ID(atomic_long_read(state_var));
>
> I think it is error-prone to re-read @state_var here. It is lockless
> shared data. desc_read_committed() is called twice in prb_read() and it
> is expected that both calls are using the same @id.
>
> > enum desc_state d_state;
> >
> > d_state = desc_read(desc_ring, id, desc);
> > if (d_state == desc_miss ||
> > d_state == desc_reserved ||
> > desc->info.seq != seq)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > if (d_state == desc_reusable)
> > return -ENOENT;
>
> I can use this refactoring.
>
> >
> > if (d_state != desc_committed)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> I suppose you meant to remove this check and leave in the @blk_lpos
> check instead. If we're trying to minimize lines of code, the @blk_lpos
> check could be combined with the "== desc_reusable" check as well.
I am an idiot. I missed that the check "d_state != desc_committed"
will return -EINVAL also when desc_miss or desc_reserved.
I was too concentrated by the fact that desc->info.seq was checked
first even though it might contain garbage.
Also it did not help me much the note about blk_lpos. I did not
see how it was related to this code.
To sum up. The original code worked fine. But I would prefer my variant
that has more lines but it is somehow cleaner.
Best Regards,
Petr
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
