On 2/28/25 16:36, Keith Busch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 07:29:45AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, Keith Busch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 06:32:47AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
@@ -35,10 +35,12 @@ static inline int call_once(struct once *once, int (*cb)(struct once *))
return 0;
guard(mutex)(&once->lock);
- WARN_ON(atomic_read(&once->state) == ONCE_RUNNING);
- if (atomic_read(&once->state) != ONCE_NOT_STARTED)
+ if (WARN_ON(atomic_read(&once->state) == ONCE_RUNNING))
return -EINVAL;
+ if (atomic_read(&once->state) == ONCE_COMPLETED)
+ return 0;
+
atomic_set(&once->state, ONCE_RUNNING);
r = cb(once);
if (r)
Possible suggestion since it seems odd to do an atomic_read twice on the
same value.
Yeah, good call. At the risk of getting too cute, how about this?
Sure, that also looks good to me.
Just to overthink it a bit more, I'm changing "if (r)" to "if (r < 0)".
Not because it's particularly useful to return a meaningful nonzero
value on the first initialization, but more because 0+ for success and
-errno for failure is a more common.
Queued with this change, thanks.
(Keith, I haven't forgotten about AVX by the way).
Paolo
