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 <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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.
>
> ---
> ~Randy
-- Vadim Lobanov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
