Re: [PATCH 06/16] rbd: convert timeouts to secs_to_jiffies()

[Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/28/2025 10:21 AM, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
> Commit b35108a51cf7 ("jiffies: Define secs_to_jiffies()") introduced
> secs_to_jiffies().  As the value here is a multiple of 1000, use
> secs_to_jiffies() instead of msecs_to_jiffies to avoid the multiplication.
> 
> This is converted using scripts/coccinelle/misc/secs_to_jiffies.cocci with
> the following Coccinelle rules:
> 
> @depends on patch@
> expression E;
> @@
> 
> -msecs_to_jiffies
> +secs_to_jiffies
> (E
> - * \( 1000 \| MSEC_PER_SEC \)
> )
> 
> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/block/rbd.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

<snip>

> @@ -6283,9 +6283,9 @@ static int rbd_parse_param(struct fs_parameter *param,
>  		break;
>  	case Opt_lock_timeout:
>  		/* 0 is "wait forever" (i.e. infinite timeout) */
> -		if (result.uint_32 > INT_MAX / 1000)
> +		if (result.uint_32 > INT_MAX)
>  			goto out_of_range;
> -		opt->lock_timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(result.uint_32 * 1000);
> +		opt->lock_timeout = secs_to_jiffies(result.uint_32);
>  		break;
>  	case Opt_pool_ns:
>  		kfree(pctx->spec->pool_ns);
> 

Hi Ilya, Dongsheng, Jens, others,

Could you please review this hunk and confirm the correct range check
here? I figure this is here because of the multiplier to
msecs_to_jiffies() and therefore unneeded after the conversion. If so, I
noticed patch 07 has similar range checks that I neglected to fix and
can do in a v2.

Thanks,
Easwar (he/him)