From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754408Ab0IETXo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:23:44 -0400
Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:61727 "EHLO
	mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752211Ab0IETXn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 5 Sep 2010 15:23:43 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
         :in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=BwFoy9nFt4M4RgiarxA1Zz3Ov8H6G4Vj1SMSoocNuxhlJX2hZB56dP3+7IBOVRAr4z
         w/SDMjo1FJZDjCt8U15lhM7ChcK3i6XHsw2MlUryAHVJKM++/8Y9ZlUNqCb8o2sI+/z2
         zfmNUCTur3dqScmpwMDF+fosJrrlrNnDTuFjQ=
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:23:35 +0400
From: Kulikov Vasiliy <segooon@gmail.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md: do not use ++ in rcu_dereference() argument
Message-ID: <20100905192335.GA8140@albatros>
References: <1283711539-7123-1-git-send-email-segooon@gmail.com>
 <20100905190139.GA3163@merkur.ravnborg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20100905190139.GA3163@merkur.ravnborg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 21:01 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 10:32:18PM +0400, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> > From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
> > 
> > rcu_dereference() is macro, so it might use its argument twice.
> > Argument must not has side effects.
> > 
> > It was found by compiler warning:
> > drivers/md/raid1.c: In function ‘read_balance’:
> > drivers/md/raid1.c:445: warning: operation on ‘new_disk’ may be undefined
> 
> This change looks wrong.
> In the original implementation new_disk is incremented and
> then we do the array lookup.
> With your implementation it looks like we increment it after
> the array lookup.

No, the original code increments new_disk and then dereferences mirrors.

The full code:

		for (rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[new_disk].rdev);
		     r1_bio->bios[new_disk] == IO_BLOCKED ||
		     !rdev || !test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
			     || test_bit(WriteMostly, &rdev->flags);
		     rdev = rcu_dereference(conf->mirrors[++new_disk].rdev)) {

			if (rdev && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags) &&
				r1_bio->bios[new_disk] != IO_BLOCKED)
				wonly_disk = new_disk;

			if (new_disk == conf->raid_disks - 1) {
				new_disk = wonly_disk;
				break;
			}
		}

    so,

    for (a; b; c = f(++g)) {
       ...
    } 

    ==

    a;
    while (b) {
       ...
       l_continue:
       c = f(++g);
    }

    ==

    a;
    while (b) {
       ...
       l_continue:
       g++;
       c = f(g);
    }

    ==

    for (a; b; c = f(g)) {
       ...
       g++;
    } 

Or you mean smth more?

-- 
Vasiliy