Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (06/10/15 17:48), Joe Perches wrote: > [..] >> > > > For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the >> > > > pointer there. >> > > > >> > > > Proposed by Andrew Morton. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky >> > > > Reported-by: Andrew Morton >> > > > LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 >> > > >> > > Acked-by: Dan Streetman >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the >> > "$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required" list? >> >> [] >> >> Is it really worth it? >> >> There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if >> There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. >> > > Yes, that's why I asked. I don't think that zpool_destroy_pool() > will gain any significant amount of users soon (well, who knows), > so I'm fine with keeping it out of checkpatch checks. Just checked > your opinion. I really doubt if zpool will be used by anyone other than zswap anytime soon. > > -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On (06/10/15 17:48), Joe Perches wrote: [..] > > > > For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the > > > > pointer there. > > > > > > > > Proposed by Andrew Morton. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky > > > > Reported-by: Andrew Morton > > > > LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 > > > > > > Acked-by: Dan Streetman > > > > Thanks. > > > > Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the > > "$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required" list? > > [] > > Is it really worth it? > > There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if > There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. > Yes, that's why I asked. I don't think that zpool_destroy_pool() will gain any significant amount of users soon (well, who knows), so I'm fine with keeping it out of checkpatch checks. Just checked your opinion. -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 08:58 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky > > wrote: > > > zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer > > > argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although > > > there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1), > > > still update it to be coherent with the corresponding > > > destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab, > > > mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers. > > > > > > For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the > > > pointer there. > > > > > > Proposed by Andrew Morton. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky > > > Reported-by: Andrew Morton > > > LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 > > > > Acked-by: Dan Streetman > > Thanks. > > Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the > "$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required" list? [] Is it really worth it? There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
> wrote:
> > zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
> > argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
> > there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
> > still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
> > destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
> > mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
> >
> > For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
> > pointer there.
> >
> > Proposed by Andrew Morton.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky
> > Reported-by: Andrew Morton
> > LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
>
> Acked-by: Dan Streetman
Thanks.
Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the
"$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required" list?
-ss
> > ---
> > mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
> > index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
> > --- a/mm/zpool.c
> > +++ b/mm/zpool.c
> > @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
> > gfp_t gfp,
> > */
> > void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(!zpool))
> > + return;
> > +
> > pr_info("destroying pool type %s\n", zpool->type);
> >
> > spin_lock(_lock);
> > --
> > 2.4.3.368.g7974889
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> > the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> > Don't email: mailto:"d...@kvack.org;> em...@kvack.org
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
> zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
> argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
> there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
> still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
> destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
> mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
>
> For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
> pointer there.
>
> Proposed by Andrew Morton.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky
> Reported-by: Andrew Morton
> LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
Acked-by: Dan Streetman
> ---
> mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
> index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
> --- a/mm/zpool.c
> +++ b/mm/zpool.c
> @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
> gfp_t gfp,
> */
> void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
> {
> + if (unlikely(!zpool))
> + return;
> +
> pr_info("destroying pool type %s\n", zpool->type);
>
> spin_lock(_lock);
> --
> 2.4.3.368.g7974889
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: mailto:"d...@kvack.org;> em...@kvack.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com wrote:
zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
pointer there.
Proposed by Andrew Morton.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
Acked-by: Dan Streetman ddstr...@ieee.org
---
mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
--- a/mm/zpool.c
+++ b/mm/zpool.c
@@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
gfp_t gfp,
*/
void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
{
+ if (unlikely(!zpool))
+ return;
+
pr_info(destroying pool type %s\n, zpool-type);
spin_lock(pools_lock);
--
2.4.3.368.g7974889
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: a href=mailto:d...@kvack.org; em...@kvack.org /a
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com wrote:
zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
pointer there.
Proposed by Andrew Morton.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
Acked-by: Dan Streetman ddstr...@ieee.org
Thanks.
Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the
$func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required list?
-ss
---
mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
--- a/mm/zpool.c
+++ b/mm/zpool.c
@@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
gfp_t gfp,
*/
void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
{
+ if (unlikely(!zpool))
+ return;
+
pr_info(destroying pool type %s\n, zpool-type);
spin_lock(pools_lock);
--
2.4.3.368.g7974889
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: a href=mailto:d...@kvack.org; em...@kvack.org /a
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On (06/10/15 17:48), Joe Perches wrote: [..] For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the pointer there. Proposed by Andrew Morton. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 Acked-by: Dan Streetman ddstr...@ieee.org Thanks. Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the $func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required list? [] Is it really worth it? There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. Yes, that's why I asked. I don't think that zpool_destroy_pool() will gain any significant amount of users soon (well, who knows), so I'm fine with keeping it out of checkpatch checks. Just checked your opinion. -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com wrote: On (06/10/15 17:48), Joe Perches wrote: [..] For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the pointer there. Proposed by Andrew Morton. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 Acked-by: Dan Streetman ddstr...@ieee.org Thanks. Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the $func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required list? [] Is it really worth it? There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. Yes, that's why I asked. I don't think that zpool_destroy_pool() will gain any significant amount of users soon (well, who knows), so I'm fine with keeping it out of checkpatch checks. Just checked your opinion. I really doubt if zpool will be used by anyone other than zswap anytime soon. -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 08:58 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: On (06/10/15 16:59), Dan Streetman wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com wrote: zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1), still update it to be coherent with the corresponding destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab, mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers. For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the pointer there. Proposed by Andrew Morton. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583 Acked-by: Dan Streetman ddstr...@ieee.org Thanks. Shall we ask Joe to add zpool_destroy_pool() to the $func(NULL) is safe and this check is probably not required list? [] Is it really worth it? There isn't any use of zpool_destroy_pool preceded by an if There is one and only one use of zpool_destroy_pool. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
pointer there.
Proposed by Andrew Morton.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky
Reported-by: Andrew Morton
LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
---
mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
--- a/mm/zpool.c
+++ b/mm/zpool.c
@@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
gfp_t gfp,
*/
void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
{
+ if (unlikely(!zpool))
+ return;
+
pr_info("destroying pool type %s\n", zpool->type);
spin_lock(_lock);
--
2.4.3.368.g7974889
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[RFC][PATCH 4/5] mm/zpool: allow NULL `zpool' pointer in zpool_destroy_pool()
zpool_destroy_pool() does not tolerate a NULL zpool pointer
argument and performs a NULL-pointer dereference. Although
there is only one zpool_destroy_pool() user (as of 4.1),
still update it to be coherent with the corresponding
destroy() functions of the remainig pool-allocators (slab,
mempool, etc.), which now allow NULL pool-pointers.
For consistency, tweak zpool_destroy_pool() and NULL-check the
pointer there.
Proposed by Andrew Morton.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
LKML-reference: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/583
---
mm/zpool.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/zpool.c b/mm/zpool.c
index bacdab6..2f59b90 100644
--- a/mm/zpool.c
+++ b/mm/zpool.c
@@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ struct zpool *zpool_create_pool(char *type, char *name,
gfp_t gfp,
*/
void zpool_destroy_pool(struct zpool *zpool)
{
+ if (unlikely(!zpool))
+ return;
+
pr_info(destroying pool type %s\n, zpool-type);
spin_lock(pools_lock);
--
2.4.3.368.g7974889
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
