On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:20:28PM -0500, George Kennedy wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/2023 1:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 9:34 AM George Kennedy <george.kennedy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > - ret = -ENXIO;
> > > vc = vcs_vc(inode, &viewed);
> > > - if (!vc)
> > > + if (!vc) {
> > > + if (read)
> > > + break;
> > > + ret = -ENXIO;
> > > goto unlock_out;
> > > + }
> > That works, but the whole "if (read)" thing is already done after the
> > loop, so instead of essentially duplicating that logic, I really think
> > the patch should be just a plain
> >
> > vc = vcs_vc(inode, &viewed);
> > if (!vc)
> > - goto unlock_out;
> > + break;
> >
> > and nothing else.
> >
> > And yes, the pre-existing vcs_size() error handling has that same ugly pattern.
> >
> > It might be worth cleaning up too, although right now that
> >
> > size = vcs_size(vc, attr, uni_mode);
> > if (size < 0) {
> > if (read)
> > break;
> >
> > pattern means that if we 'break' there, 'read' is non-zero, so 'ret'
> > doesn't matter. Which is also ugly, but works.
> >
> > I *think* it could all be rewritten to just use 'break' everywhere in
> > the loop, and make 'ret' handling be saner.
> >
> > Something like the attached patch, but while I tried to think about
> > it, I didn't spend a lot of effort on it, and I certainly didn't test
> > it. So I'm sending this out as a "Hmm. This _looks_ better to me, but
> > whatever" patch.
>
> Thank you Linus,
>
> Will start with your suggested patch and will test it.
And I'll go drop your patch from my tree before the 0-day bots pick it
up :)
thanks,
greg k-h
