All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:03:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100812000355.GA7195@mail.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008071108540.5821@ask.diku.dk>

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> 
> list_for_each_entry uses its first argument to move from one element to the
> next, so modifying it can break the iteration.

	Thanks for catching the bug.  It was introduced by 800deef3
[ocfs2: use list_for_each_entry where benefical].  I blame Christoph.

> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> index 9dfaac7..7084a11 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> @@ -1792,10 +1792,10 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>  			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>  				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>  				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
> +					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie) {
>  						lock = NULL;
> -					else
>  						break;
> +					}
>  				}
>  				if (lock)
>  					break;

	However, this is not the correct solution.  The goal of the
original code, which used to use list_for_each(), was to leave lock
non-NULL if the cookie was found.  Your version merely exits the loop on
the first non-matching entry, always leaving lock=NULL if there is a
non-matching entry.
	One possible solution is to return the original code:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1747,7 +1747,7 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 				     struct dlm_migratable_lockres *mres)
 {
 	struct dlm_migratable_lock *ml;
-	struct list_head *queue;
+	struct list_head *queue, *iter;
 	struct list_head *tmpq = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lock *newlock = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lockstatus *lksb = NULL;
@@ -1791,11 +1791,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
-				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+				list_for_each(iter, tmpq) {
+					lock = list_entry(iter, struct dlm_lock, list);
+
+					if (lock->ml.cookie = ml->cookie)
 						break;
+					lock = NULL;
 				}
 				if (lock)
 					break;
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	Another approach would be to keep list_for_each_entry() around,
but use a better check for entry existence:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1792,13 +1792,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
 				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+					if (lock->ml.cookie = ml->cookie)
 						break;
 				}
-				if (lock)
+				if (&lock->list != tmpq)
 					break;
+				lock = NULL;
 			}
 
 			/* lock is always created locally first, and
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	I think I like the second one better.  Sunil, what do you think?

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #335

	"Every so often, push your luck."

Joel Becker
Consulting Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:03:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100812000355.GA7195@mail.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008071108540.5821@ask.diku.dk>

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> 
> list_for_each_entry uses its first argument to move from one element to the
> next, so modifying it can break the iteration.

	Thanks for catching the bug.  It was introduced by 800deef3
[ocfs2: use list_for_each_entry where benefical].  I blame Christoph.

> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> index 9dfaac7..7084a11 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> @@ -1792,10 +1792,10 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>  			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>  				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>  				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
> +					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie) {
>  						lock = NULL;
> -					else
>  						break;
> +					}
>  				}
>  				if (lock)
>  					break;

	However, this is not the correct solution.  The goal of the
original code, which used to use list_for_each(), was to leave lock
non-NULL if the cookie was found.  Your version merely exits the loop on
the first non-matching entry, always leaving lock==NULL if there is a
non-matching entry.
	One possible solution is to return the original code:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1747,7 +1747,7 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 				     struct dlm_migratable_lockres *mres)
 {
 	struct dlm_migratable_lock *ml;
-	struct list_head *queue;
+	struct list_head *queue, *iter;
 	struct list_head *tmpq = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lock *newlock = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lockstatus *lksb = NULL;
@@ -1791,11 +1791,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
-				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+				list_for_each(iter, tmpq) {
+					lock = list_entry(iter, struct dlm_lock, list);
+
+					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
 						break;
+					lock = NULL;
 				}
 				if (lock)
 					break;
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	Another approach would be to keep list_for_each_entry() around,
but use a better check for entry existence:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1792,13 +1792,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
 				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
 						break;
 				}
-				if (lock)
+				if (&lock->list != tmpq)
 					break;
+				lock = NULL;
 			}
 
 			/* lock is always created locally first, and
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	I think I like the second one better.  Sunil, what do you think?

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #335

	"Every so often, push your luck."

Joel Becker
Consulting Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>,
	ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Sunil Mushran <sunil.mushran@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:03:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100812000355.GA7195@mail.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008071108540.5821@ask.diku.dk>

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> 
> list_for_each_entry uses its first argument to move from one element to the
> next, so modifying it can break the iteration.

	Thanks for catching the bug.  It was introduced by 800deef3
[ocfs2: use list_for_each_entry where benefical].  I blame Christoph.

> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> index 9dfaac7..7084a11 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c
> @@ -1792,10 +1792,10 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
>  			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
>  				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
>  				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
> -					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
> +					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie) {
>  						lock = NULL;
> -					else
>  						break;
> +					}
>  				}
>  				if (lock)
>  					break;

	However, this is not the correct solution.  The goal of the
original code, which used to use list_for_each(), was to leave lock
non-NULL if the cookie was found.  Your version merely exits the loop on
the first non-matching entry, always leaving lock==NULL if there is a
non-matching entry.
	One possible solution is to return the original code:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1747,7 +1747,7 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 				     struct dlm_migratable_lockres *mres)
 {
 	struct dlm_migratable_lock *ml;
-	struct list_head *queue;
+	struct list_head *queue, *iter;
 	struct list_head *tmpq = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lock *newlock = NULL;
 	struct dlm_lockstatus *lksb = NULL;
@@ -1791,11 +1791,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
-				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+				list_for_each(iter, tmpq) {
+					lock = list_entry(iter, struct dlm_lock, list);
+
+					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
 						break;
+					lock = NULL;
 				}
 				if (lock)
 					break;
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	Another approach would be to keep list_for_each_entry() around,
but use a better check for entry existence:

--8<-----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -1792,13 +1792,12 @@ static int dlm_process_recovery_data(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
 			for (j = DLM_GRANTED_LIST; j <= DLM_BLOCKED_LIST; j++) {
 				tmpq = dlm_list_idx_to_ptr(res, j);
 				list_for_each_entry(lock, tmpq, list) {
-					if (lock->ml.cookie != ml->cookie)
-						lock = NULL;
-					else
+					if (lock->ml.cookie == ml->cookie)
 						break;
 				}
-				if (lock)
+				if (&lock->list != tmpq)
 					break;
+				lock = NULL;
 			}
 
 			/* lock is always created locally first, and
-->8-----------------------------------------------------------------

	I think I like the second one better.  Sunil, what do you think?

Joel

-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #335

	"Every so often, push your luck."

Joel Becker
Consulting Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127

  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-12  0:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-07  9:09 [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry Julia Lawall
2010-08-07  9:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Julia Lawall
2010-08-07  9:09 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Julia Lawall
2010-08-12  0:03 ` Joel Becker [this message]
2010-08-12  0:03   ` Joel Becker
2010-08-12  0:03   ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Joel Becker
2010-08-12  5:46   ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry Julia Lawall
2010-08-12  5:46     ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Julia Lawall
2010-08-12  5:46     ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Julia Lawall
2010-08-12  7:14     ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of Dan Carpenter
2010-08-12  7:14       ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Dan Carpenter
2010-08-12  7:14       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Dan Carpenter
2010-08-12  9:31     ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of Joel Becker
2010-08-12  9:31       ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Joel Becker
2010-08-12  9:31       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Joel Becker
2011-11-02  7:39   ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of Dan Carpenter
2011-11-02  7:39     ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Dan Carpenter
2011-11-02 17:05     ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry Sunil Mushran
2011-11-02 17:05       ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Sunil Mushran
2011-11-02 17:05       ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Sunil Mushran
2011-11-17  8:43       ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of Joel Becker
2011-11-17  8:43         ` [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] fs/ocfs2/dlm: Eliminate update of list_for_each_entry loop cursor Joel Becker
2011-11-17  8:43         ` Joel Becker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100812000355.GA7195@mail.oracle.com \
    --to=joel.becker@oracle.com \
    --cc=julia@diku.dk \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mfasheh@suse.com \
    --cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com \
    --cc=sunil.mushran@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.