mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh.babulal@oracle.com>
To: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dan.carpenter@linaro.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	error27@gmail.com, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] cgroup/cpuset: Cleanup signedness issue in cpu_exclusive_check()
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:07:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aceadbf1-0345-2b7d-4468-c7c42ac15e03@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230927065801.2139969-1-harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>


On 9/27/23 12:28, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> Smatch complains about returning negative error codes from a type
> bool function.
> 
> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:705 cpu_exclusive_check() warn:
> 	signedness bug returning '(-22)'
> 
> The code works correctly, but it is confusing.  The current behavior is
> that cpu_exclusive_check() returns true if it's *NOT* exclusive.  Rename
> it to cpusets_are_exclusive() and reverse the returns so it returns true
> if it is exclusive and false if it's not.  Update both callers as well.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202309201706.2LhKdM6o-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>

The patch looks good to me, returning true on exclusive cpusets is more
intuitive. Renaming cpu_exclusive_check() to is_cpuset_exclusive() is
one other option, though, there is is_cpu_exclusive() function, which
sounds similar, and tests for the cpu exclusive bit in a given cpuset's
flag.

I don't have a strong opinion between the original function name and
the proposed rename.

Reviewed-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh.babulal@oracle.com>

> ---
> This is based on sattic analysis, only compile tested
> ---
>  kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index 15f399153a2e..afefddd33c3e 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -719,18 +719,18 @@ static inline struct cpumask *fetch_xcpus(struct cpuset *cs)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * cpu_exclusive_check() - check if two cpusets are exclusive
> + * cpusets_are_exclusive() - check if two cpusets are exclusive
>   *
> - * Return 0 if exclusive, -EINVAL if not
> + * Return true if exclusive, false if not
>   */
> -static inline bool cpu_exclusive_check(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2)
> +static inline bool cpusets_are_exclusive(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2)
>  {
>  	struct cpumask *xcpus1 = fetch_xcpus(cs1);
>  	struct cpumask *xcpus2 = fetch_xcpus(cs2);
>  
>  	if (cpumask_intersects(xcpus1, xcpus2))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	return 0;
> +		return false;
> +	return true;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ static int validate_change(struct cpuset *cur, struct cpuset *trial)
>  	cpuset_for_each_child(c, css, par) {
>  		if ((is_cpu_exclusive(trial) || is_cpu_exclusive(c)) &&
>  		    c != cur) {
> -			if (cpu_exclusive_check(trial, c))
> +			if (!cpusets_are_exclusive(trial, c))
>  				goto out;
>  		}
>  		if ((is_mem_exclusive(trial) || is_mem_exclusive(c)) &&
> @@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@ static int update_parent_effective_cpumask(struct cpuset *cs, int cmd,
>  			cpuset_for_each_child(child, css, parent) {
>  				if (child == cs)
>  					continue;
> -				if (cpu_exclusive_check(cs, child)) {
> +				if (!cpusets_are_exclusive(cs, child)) {
>  					exclusive = false;
>  					break;
>  				}

-- 
Thanks,
Kamalesh

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-27  9:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-27  6:58 Harshit Mogalapalli
2023-09-27  9:37 ` Kamalesh Babulal [this message]
2023-09-27 13:13 ` Waiman Long
2023-10-04 18:59 ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aceadbf1-0345-2b7d-4468-c7c42ac15e03@oracle.com \
    --to=kamalesh.babulal@oracle.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
    --cc=error27@gmail.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®