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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-12 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ 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 loop cursor Julia Lawall
2010-08-12 0:03 ` Joel Becker [this message]
2010-08-12 5:46 ` Julia Lawall
2010-08-12 7:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-08-12 9:31 ` Joel Becker
2011-11-02 7:39 ` Dan Carpenter
2011-11-02 17:05 ` Sunil Mushran
2011-11-17 8:43 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).