On 2020-03-20 05:16, Jack Wang wrote:
> +static int __read_mostly port_nr = RTRS_PORT;
Would uint16_t be sufficient for this kernel module parameter?
Is this kernel module parameter used anywhere in the hot path? If not,
should __read_mostly perhaps be left out?
> +module_param_named(port_nr, port_nr, int, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(port_nr,
> + "The port number server is listening on (default: "
^^^
the?
> + __stringify(RTRS_PORT)")");
> +
> +#define DEFAULT_DEV_SEARCH_PATH "/"
> +static void destroy_device(struct rnbd_srv_dev *dev)
> +{
> + WARN(!list_empty(&dev->sess_dev_list),
> + "Device %s is being destroyed but still in use!\n",
> + dev->id);
Has it been considered to change WARN() into WARN_ONCE()?
> +static int rnbd_srv_rdma_ev(struct rtrs_srv *rtrs, void *priv,
> + struct rtrs_srv_op *id, int dir,
> + void *data, size_t datalen, const void *usr,
> + size_t usrlen)
> +{
> + struct rnbd_srv_session *srv_sess = priv;
> + const struct rnbd_msg_hdr *hdr = usr;
> + int ret = 0;
> + u16 type;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!srv_sess))
> + return -ENODEV;
Same question here: how about using WARN_ON_ONCE() instead of WARN_ON()?
> +static char *rnbd_srv_get_full_path(struct rnbd_srv_session *srv_sess,
> + const char *dev_name)
> +{
> + char *full_path;
> + char *a, *b;
> +
> + full_path = kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!full_path)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + /*
> + * Replace %SESSNAME% with a real session name in order to
> + * create device namespace.
> + */
> + a = strnstr(dev_search_path, "%SESSNAME%", sizeof(dev_search_path));
> + if (a) {
> + int len = a - dev_search_path;
> +
> + len = snprintf(full_path, PATH_MAX, "%.*s/%s/%s", len,
> + dev_search_path, srv_sess->sessname, dev_name);
> + if (len >= PATH_MAX) {
> + pr_err("Tooooo looong path: %s, %s, %s\n",
> + dev_search_path, srv_sess->sessname, dev_name);
> + kfree(full_path);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> + } else {
> + snprintf(full_path, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s",
> + dev_search_path, dev_name);
> + }
Has it been considered to use kasprintf() instead of kmalloc() + snprintf()?
Otherwise this patch looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Bart.
