Re: [PATCH 2/6] uprobes/x86: Optimize is_optimize()

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 06:51:58AM +0100, David Laight wrote:

> > @@ -1069,17 +1068,14 @@ int set_swbp(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe
> >  	     unsigned long vaddr)
> >  {
> >  	if (should_optimize(auprobe)) {
> > -		bool optimized = false;
> > -		int err;
> > -
> >  		/*
> >  		 * We could race with another thread that already optimized the probe,
> >  		 * so let's not overwrite it with int3 again in this case.
> >  		 */
> > -		err = is_optimized(vma->vm_mm, vaddr, &optimized);
> > -		if (err)
> > -			return err;
> > -		if (optimized)
> > +		int ret = is_optimized(vma->vm_mm, vaddr);
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			return ret;
> > +		if (ret)
> >  			return 0;
> 
> Looks like you should swap over 0 and 1.
> That would then be: if (ret <= 0) return ret;

I considered that, but that was actually more confusing. Yes the return
check is neat, but urgh.

The tri-state return is: 

<0 -- error
 0 -- false
 1 -- true

and that is converted to the 'normal' convention:

<0 -- error
 0 -- success


Making that intermediate:

<0 -- error
 0 -- true
 1 -- false

is just asking for trouble later.