On 02/02/23 at 07:17am, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 11:20:07AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > + for_each_set_bitrange(rs, re, vb->used_map, VMAP_BBMAP_BITS) {
> > > > + if (!count)
> > > > + break;
> > > > + start = vmap_block_vaddr(vb->va->va_start, rs);
> > > > + while (addr < start) {
> > > > + if (count == 0)
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > Bit pedantic, but you're using the `if (!count)` form of checking whether it's
> > > zero above, but here you explicitly check it, would be good to keep both consistent.
> >
> > Yeah, sounds good. Will change.
> >
> > >
> > > Given you're checking here, perhaps you could simply drop the previous check?
> >
> > Well, maybe no. The previous "if (!count)" is checking if count is 0
> > after the 'count -=n;' line at the end of the for_each loop. While this
> > "if (count == 0)" is checking if count is 0 after 'count--;' at the end
> > of while loop. Not sure if I got your point.
>
> You're right, sorry each break is for a different loop :) and I guess the inner
> check is feeding the outer one so we're all good.
Oh, the inner check and break only terminates the while loop, but it
should jump to the 'spin_unlock(&vb->lock);' line too as the outer
break does. I will fix this.
