The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
consistency.
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c
index 5a49f07a6c85..36139cba7be8 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c
@@ -368,10 +368,9 @@ static int get_mem_bw_imc(int cpu_no, char *bw_report, float *bw_imc)
writes += w->return_value.value * of_mul_write * SCALE;
}
- for (imc = 0; imc < imcs; imc++) {
- close(imc_counters_config[imc][READ].fd);
- close(imc_counters_config[imc][WRITE].fd);
- }
+ for (imc = 0; imc < imcs; imc++)
+ for (j = 0; j < 2; j++)
+ close(imc_counters_config[imc][j].fd);
if (strcmp(bw_report, "reads") == 0) {
*bw_imc = reads;
--
2.39.2
Hi Ilpo,
On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
>
> Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> consistency.
I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two
reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is
obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop
adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop
is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0
and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying
value.
Reinette
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> > > fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
> > >
> > > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> > > consistency.
> >
> > I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two
> > reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is
> > obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop
> > adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop
> > is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0
> > and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying
> > value.
>
> Hi,
>
> So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops
> instead?
Nevermind, I read the comment to second patch, so the answer is yes. :-)
--
i.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> > fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
> >
> > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> > consistency.
>
> I find the close() side to be more appropriate. I say this for two
> reasons: (a) looking at the close() calls as they are now it is
> obvious what the close() applies to and transitioning to a loop
> adds a layer of unnecessary indirection, (b) I do not think a loop
> is appropriate for the READ/WRITE define that just happen to be 0
> and 1 ... there should not be an assumption about their underlying
> value.
Hi,
So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops
instead?
--
i.