From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Changes since v1 [1]:
* Collect Jan's reviewed-by.
* According to Dan's suggestion, update the unit test infrastructure
tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c for checking the validity of gfn.
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/4/81
---
Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.
Assigning NULL to gfn of dax_direct_access is more intuitive and simple
than offering a useless local variable.
So all direct_access need to check the validity of pointer pfn for NULL
assignment. If pfn equals to NULL, it doesn't need to calculate its value.
---
Huaisheng Ye (4):
nvdimm/pmem: check the validity of the pointer pfn
nvdimm/pmem-dax: check the validity of the pointer pfn
s390/block/dcssblk: check the validity of the pointer pfn
fs/dax: Assign NULL to gfn of dax_direct_access if useless
drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 3 ++-
drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c | 3 ++-
fs/dax.c | 9 +++------
tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c | 6 ++++--
4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--
1.8.3.1
From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
direct_access needs to check the validity of pointer pfn for NULL
assignment. If pfn equals to NULL, it doesn't need to calculate the value.
Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
---
drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
index 9d71492..018f990 100644
--- a/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c
@@ -233,7 +233,8 @@ __weak long __pmem_direct_access(struct pmem_device *pmem, pgoff_t pgoff,
PFN_PHYS(nr_pages))))
return -EIO;
*kaddr = pmem->virt_addr + offset;
- *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags);
+ if (pfn)
+ *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags);
/*
* If badblocks are present, limit known good range to the
--
1.8.3.1
From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.
Assigning NULL to gfn of dax_direct_access is more intuitive and simple
than offering a useless local variable.
Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
---
fs/dax.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
index aaec72de..aa75dfd 100644
--- a/fs/dax.c
+++ b/fs/dax.c
@@ -550,7 +550,6 @@ static int copy_user_dax(struct block_device *bdev, struct dax_device *dax_dev,
{
void *vto, *kaddr;
pgoff_t pgoff;
- pfn_t pfn;
long rc;
int id;
@@ -559,7 +558,7 @@ static int copy_user_dax(struct block_device *bdev, struct dax_device *dax_dev,
return rc;
id = dax_read_lock();
- rc = dax_direct_access(dax_dev, pgoff, PHYS_PFN(size), &kaddr, &pfn);
+ rc = dax_direct_access(dax_dev, pgoff, PHYS_PFN(size), &kaddr, NULL);
if (rc < 0) {
dax_read_unlock(id);
return rc;
@@ -961,7 +960,6 @@ int __dax_zero_page_range(struct block_device *bdev,
pgoff_t pgoff;
long rc, id;
void *kaddr;
- pfn_t pfn;
rc = bdev_dax_pgoff(bdev, sector, PAGE_SIZE, &pgoff);
if (rc)
@@ -969,7 +967,7 @@ int __dax_zero_page_range(struct block_device *bdev,
id = dax_read_lock();
rc = dax_direct_access(dax_dev, pgoff, 1, &kaddr,
- &pfn);
+ NULL);
if (rc < 0) {
dax_read_unlock(id);
return rc;
@@ -1024,7 +1022,6 @@ int __dax_zero_page_range(struct block_device *bdev,
ssize_t map_len;
pgoff_t pgoff;
void *kaddr;
- pfn_t pfn;
if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
ret = -EINTR;
@@ -1036,7 +1033,7 @@ int __dax_zero_page_range(struct block_device *bdev,
break;
map_len = dax_direct_access(dax_dev, pgoff, PHYS_PFN(size),
- &kaddr, &pfn);
+ &kaddr, NULL);
if (map_len < 0) {
ret = map_len;
break;
--
1.8.3.1
From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
direct_access needs to check the validity of pointer pfn for NULL
assignment. If pfn equals to NULL, it doesn't need to calculate the value.
Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
---
drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c b/drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c
index 0a312e4..5cdfa02 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/block/dcssblk.c
@@ -916,7 +916,8 @@ static DEVICE_ATTR(save, S_IWUSR | S_IRUSR, dcssblk_save_show,
dev_sz = dev_info->end - dev_info->start + 1;
*kaddr = (void *) dev_info->start + offset;
- *pfn = __pfn_to_pfn_t(PFN_DOWN(dev_info->start + offset),
+ if (pfn)
+ *pfn = __pfn_to_pfn_t(PFN_DOWN(dev_info->start + offset),
PFN_DEV|PFN_SPECIAL);
return (dev_sz - offset) / PAGE_SIZE;
--
1.8.3.1
From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
direct_access needs to check the validity of pointer pfn for NULL
assignment. If pfn equals to NULL, it doesn't need to calculate the value.
Suggested-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c b/tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c
index b53596a..d4cb528 100644
--- a/tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c
+++ b/tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c
@@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ long __pmem_direct_access(struct pmem_device *pmem, pgoff_t pgoff,
*kaddr = pmem->virt_addr + offset;
page = vmalloc_to_page(pmem->virt_addr + offset);
- *pfn = page_to_pfn_t(page);
+ if (pfn)
+ *pfn = page_to_pfn_t(page);
pr_debug_ratelimited("%s: pmem: %p pgoff: %#lx pfn: %#lx\n",
__func__, pmem, pgoff, page_to_pfn(page));
@@ -41,7 +42,8 @@ long __pmem_direct_access(struct pmem_device *pmem, pgoff_t pgoff,
}
*kaddr = pmem->virt_addr + offset;
- *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags);
+ if (pfn)
+ *pfn = phys_to_pfn_t(pmem->phys_addr + offset, pmem->pfn_flags);
/*
* If badblocks are present, limit known good range to the
--
1.8.3.1
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
>
> Changes since v1 [1]:
> * Collect Jan's reviewed-by.
> * According to Dan's suggestion, update the unit test infrastructure
> tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c for checking the validity of gfn.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/4/81
>
> ---
>
> Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.
Any reason you are calling it 'gfn'? I'm assuming that is a typo and
it should be 'pfn'.
---- On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:48:40 +0800 Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote ----
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
> >
> > Changes since v1 [1]:
> > * Collect Jan's reviewed-by.
> > * According to Dan's suggestion, update the unit test infrastructure
> > tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c for checking the validity of gfn.
> >
> > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/4/81
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.
>
> Any reason you are calling it 'gfn'? I'm assuming that is a typo and
> it should be 'pfn'.
Oh, sorry.
I made a mistake, it is a typo. I will correct it right now.
---
Cheers,
Huaisheng Ye
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:48:40 +0800 Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote ----
> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > From: Huaisheng Ye <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Changes since v1 [1]:
> > > * Collect Jan's reviewed-by.
> > > * According to Dan's suggestion, update the unit test infrastructure
> > > tools/testing/nvdimm/pmem-dax.c for checking the validity of gfn.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/4/81
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Some functions within fs/dax don't need to get gfn from direct_access.
> >
> > Any reason you are calling it 'gfn'? I'm assuming that is a typo and
> > it should be 'pfn'.
>
> Oh, sorry.
> I made a mistake, it is a typo. I will correct it right now.
Don't worry about sending a new version. I'll fix it up when I apply the series.