Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] block/badblocks: change some members of badblocks to bool

[Li Nan <linan666@huaweicloud.com>]

在 2023/6/21 22:02, Ashok Raj 写道:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:20:49AM +0800, linan666@huaweicloud.com wrote:
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>>
>> "changed" and "unacked_exist" are used as boolean type. Change the type
>> of them to bool. And reorder fields to reduce memory hole.
> 
> minor nit: If you use a .gitorderfile to list .h before .c it will help review them in
> order.
> 

I will config my git.

> I don't know if its even worth doing this manual compaction unless you are
> storing the entire struct in some flash or its in a sensitive cache
> thrashing structure.
> 

Yeah, it is worthless to manual compaction.

> bool is useful that it makes the code easier to read and can eliminate some
> class of bugs that you would otherwise use !! operator.
> 
>>
>> No functional changed intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   block/badblocks.c         | 14 +++++++-------
>>   include/linux/badblocks.h | 10 +++++-----
>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
>> index 3afb550c0f7b..1b4caa42c5f1 100644
>> --- a/block/badblocks.c
>> +++ b/block/badblocks.c
>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static void badblocks_update_acked(struct badblocks *bb)
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	if (!unacked)
>> -		bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> +		bb->unacked_exist = false;
>>   }
>>   
>>   /**
>> @@ -302,9 +302,9 @@ int badblocks_set(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors,
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	bb->changed = 1;
>> +	bb->changed = true;
>>   	if (!acknowledged)
>> -		bb->unacked_exist = 1;
>> +		bb->unacked_exist = true;
>>   	else
>>   		badblocks_update_acked(bb);
>>   	write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&bb->lock, flags);
>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ int badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors)
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	badblocks_update_acked(bb);
>> -	bb->changed = 1;
>> +	bb->changed = true;
>>   out:
>>   	write_sequnlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>>   	return rv;
>> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ void ack_all_badblocks(struct badblocks *bb)
>>   		return;
>>   	write_seqlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>>   
>> -	if (bb->changed == 0 && bb->unacked_exist) {
>> +	if (bb->changed == false && bb->unacked_exist) {
> 
> 	if (!bb->changed && bb->unacked_exist)

I will change it in next version.

> 
> 
>>   		u64 *p = bb->page;
>>   		int i;
>>   
>> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ void ack_all_badblocks(struct badblocks *bb)
>>   				p[i] = BB_MAKE(start, len, 1);
>>   			}
>>   		}
>> -		bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> +		bb->unacked_exist = false;
>>   	}
>>   	write_sequnlock_irq(&bb->lock);
>>   }
>> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ ssize_t badblocks_show(struct badblocks *bb, char *page, int unack)
>>   				length << bb->shift);
>>   	}
>>   	if (unack && len == 0)
>> -		bb->unacked_exist = 0;
>> +		bb->unacked_exist = false;
>>   
>>   	if (read_seqretry(&bb->lock, seq))
>>   		goto retry;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/badblocks.h b/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> index 2426276b9bd3..c2723f97d22d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/badblocks.h
>> @@ -27,15 +27,15 @@
>>   struct badblocks {
>>   	struct device *dev;	/* set by devm_init_badblocks */
>>   	int count;		/* count of bad blocks */
>> -	int unacked_exist;	/* there probably are unacknowledged
>> -				 * bad blocks.  This is only cleared
>> -				 * when a read discovers none
>> -				 */
>>   	int shift;		/* shift from sectors to block size
>>   				 * a -ve shift means badblocks are
>>   				 * disabled.*/
>> +	bool unacked_exist;	/* there probably are unacknowledged
>> +				 * bad blocks.  This is only cleared
>> +				 * when a read discovers none
> 
> read of what?

"... when a read of unacknowledged bad blocks discovers none"

Would this be better？

Thank for your suggestion.

> 
>> +				 */
>> +	bool changed;
>>   	u64 *page;		/* badblock list */
>> -	int changed;
>>   	seqlock_t lock;
>>   	sector_t sector;
>>   	sector_t size;		/* in sectors */
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>
> 
> .

-- 
Thanks,
Nan