Re: [PATCH block#for-2.6.31 2/3] block: set rq->resid_len to blk_rq_bytes()on issue

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>> So, I could have written
>>
>>  if (cmd->act_len >= rq->resid_len)
>> 	rq->resid_len = 0;
>>  else
>> 	rq->resid_len -= cmd->act_len
>>
>> Instead I wrote
>>
>>  rq->resid_len -= min(cmd->act_len, rq->resid_len);
>>
>> It's just capping the amount to be subtracted so that resid_len
>> doesn't underflow.  What is so wrong or bad style about that?
> 
> Curse of the gifted, I guess. To use a subtraction instead of zero
> this way looks like a pointless, even mischievous obfuscation to me.

Ummm... I don't know.  I prefer min/max over if/else when capping
values.  To me, it makes the intention clearer but you're the
maintainer and don't like the style, so I'll update the patch so that
it has the if/else clause.  :-)

> Also, we probably want a stack_dump or a printk when actual length
> exceeds the requested length, don't we? If it ever happens, we
> might be overwriting some I/O buffer somewhere.

It depends on particular implementation.  Transport overflow doesn't
necessarily become actual buffer overflow depending on hardware and
driver implementation.  If you think the user needs to be warned about
transport overflow, please go ahead and add a warning there.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/