Re: [PATCH 2/5] debugobjects: Remove redundant checks in fill_pool()

["Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>]

On 2024/9/3 17:44, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02 2024 at 22:05, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> The conditions for the inner and outer loops are exactly the same, so the
>> outer 'while' should be changed to 'if'. Then we'll see that the
>> second
> 
> We'll see nothing. Please write change logs in passive voice and do not
> try to impersonate code.

OK

> 
>> condition of the new 'if' is already guaranteed above and can be
>> removed.
> 
> Yes, the conditions are the same. But a 'if' is not the same as a 'while'.
> 
> So you need to explain why the outer loop is not required and why it
> does not make a difference in terms of functionality.

OK, I'll write a good description in V2.

> 
>> @@ -142,8 +142,7 @@ static void fill_pool(void)
>>  	 * READ_ONCE()s pair with the WRITE_ONCE()s in pool_lock critical
>>  	 * sections.
>>  	 */
> 
> The comment does not make sense anymore. Please fixup comments when
> changing the code. It's a pain to read a comment and then see that the
> code does something different.

OK

> 
>> -	while (READ_ONCE(obj_nr_tofree) &&
>> -	       READ_ONCE(obj_pool_free) < debug_objects_pool_min_level) {
>> +	if (READ_ONCE(obj_nr_tofree)) {
>>  		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
>>  		/*
>>  		 * Recheck with the lock held as the worker thread might have
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei