Re: [PATCH v3 10/19] nvme: Move NVMe and Block PR types to an array

michael.christie
2022-10-27T17:13:31Z

On 10/27/22 12:06 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 10/27/22 10:18 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:19:36PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>>> For Reservation Report support we need to also convert from the NVMe spec
>>> PR type back to the block PR definition. This moves us to an array, so in
>>> the next patch we can add another helper to do the conversion without
>>> having to manage 2 switches.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/nvme/host/pr.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>> include/linux/nvme.h | 9 +++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>>> index df7eb2440c67..5c4611d15d9c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
>>> @@ -6,24 +6,28 @@
>>>
>>> #include "nvme.h"
>>>
>>> -static char nvme_pr_type(enum pr_type type)
>>> +static const struct {
>>> + enum nvme_pr_type nvme_type;
>>> + enum pr_type blk_type;
>>> +} nvme_pr_types[] = {
>>> + { NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE },
>>> + { NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS },
>>> + { NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_REG_ONLY, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_REG_ONLY },
>>> + { NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_REG_ONLY, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_REG_ONLY },
>>> + { NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_ALL_REGS, PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE_ALL_REGS },
>>> + { NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_ALL_REGS, PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS_ALL_REGS },
>>> +};
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to use the block type as the array index to avoid
>> the whole looped lookup?
>>
>> enum nvme_pr_type types[] = {
>> .PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE = NVME_PR_WRITE_EXCLUSIVE,
>> .PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS = NVME_PR_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS,
>> ...
>> };
>
> It would be. However,
>
> 1. I wasn't sure how future proof we wanted it and I might have
> misinterpreted Chaitanya's original review comment. The part of
> the comment about handling "every new nvme_type" made me think that
> we were worried there would be new types in the future. So I thought
> we wanted it to be really generic and be able to handle cases where
> the values could be funky like -1 in the future.
>
> 2. I also need to go from NVME_PR type to PR type, so we need a
> second array. So we can either have 2 arrays or 1 array and 2
> loops (the next patch in this set added the second loop).
> If we don't care about #1 then I can I see 2 arrays is nicer.

Oh wait there was also a

3. The pr_types come from userspace so if it passes us 10
and we just do:

types[pr_type]

then we would crash due an out of bounds error.

Similarly I thought there could be a bad target that does the
same thing.