Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:01:33 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Clean up expand_fdtable() and expand_files(). |
| |
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:56:49 -0700 Vadim Lobanov wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:55, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:08:36 -0700 Vadim Lobanov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This patch performs a code cleanup against the expand_fdtable() and > > > expand_files() functions inside fs/file.c. It aims to make the flow of > > > code within these functions simpler and easier to understand, via added > > > comments and modest refactoring. The patch was generated against > > > 2.6.18-rc5-mm1, and was successfully run live. Please apply. > > > > > > (I'm trying out KMail for this patch. I tested this mailer beforehand to > > > make sure the patch will come out unmangled, but, as with all things > > > software, success is far from guaranteed. :) Please yell if the patch is > > > borked.) > > > > It's not (mechanically) b0rked. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@speakeasy.net> > > > > > > diff -Npru linux-a/fs/file.c linux-b/fs/file.c > > > --- linux-a/fs/file.c 2006-09-01 20:34:12.000000000 -0700 > > > +++ linux-b/fs/file.c 2006-09-04 16:42:33.000000000 -0700 > > > @@ -296,37 +296,30 @@ static int expand_fdtable(struct files_s > > > __releases(files->file_lock) > > > __acquires(files->file_lock) > > > { > > > - int error = 0; > > > - struct fdtable *fdt; > > > - struct fdtable *nfdt = NULL; > > > + struct fdtable *new_fdt, *cur_fdt; > > > > > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - nfdt = alloc_fdtable(nr); > > > - if (!nfdt) { > > > - error = -ENOMEM; > > > - spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > > - goto out; > > > - } > > > - > > > + new_fdt = alloc_fdtable(nr); > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > > - fdt = files_fdtable(files); > > > + if (!new_fdt) > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > /* > > > - * Check again since another task may have expanded the > > > - * fd table while we dropped the lock > > > + * Check again since another task may have expanded the fd table while > > > + * we dropped the lock > > > */ > > > - if (nr >= fdt->max_fds || nr >= fdt->max_fdset) { > > > - copy_fdtable(nfdt, fdt); > > > + cur_fdt = files_fdtable(files); > > > + if (nr >= cur_fdt->max_fds || nr >= cur_fdt->max_fdset) { > > > + /* Continue as planned */ > > > + copy_fdtable(new_fdt, cur_fdt); > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new_fdt); > > > + free_fdtable(cur_fdt); > > > } else { > > > - /* Somebody expanded while we dropped file_lock */ > > > + /* Somebody else expanded, so undo our attempt */ > > > spin_unlock(&files->file_lock); > > > - __free_fdtable(nfdt); > > > + __free_fdtable(new_fdt); > > > spin_lock(&files->file_lock); > > > - goto out; > > > } > > > - rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, nfdt); > > > - free_fdtable(fdt); > > > -out: > > > - return error; > > > + return 1; > > > > This function didn't previously return a value of 1. > > If it can do so now, please document it in the function comments > > "header". Using kernel-doc would be good too. > > More comments on the function headers. Gotcha. Will resend. > > The problem with kernel-doc in this particular instance is that none of the > other functions in that file have comments in that particular style; they all > currently use the mostly-unstructured C comments. If anything, it'd be far > simpler and cleaner to get this particular patch merged first, and then add > kernel-doc comments to _all_ the functions in this file at once in a later > patch.
Sure. The kernel-doc comment was certainly secondary.
--- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |