Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: rpc_xprt_debugfs_register() - atomic_inc_return() usage
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        "Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com" <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>
Cc:     "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "chuck.lever@oracle.com" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <06c8f6ff-f821-e909-d40c-9de98657729f@linuxfoundation.org>
 <020aee05c808b3725db5679967406a918840f86f.camel@hammerspace.com>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <5952caee-edb4-e9ec-6621-fb50cfe3384f@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:01:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <020aee05c808b3725db5679967406a918840f86f.camel@hammerspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 1/21/21 10:56 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 16:52 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> Hi Anna and Trond,
>>
>> I came across the following while reviewing atomic_inc_return()
>> usages
>> that cast return value to unsigned
>>
>> rpc_xprt_debugfs_register()'s atomic_inc_return() usage looks a bit
>> odd.
>>
>> - cur_id isn't initialized
>> - id = (unsigned int)atomic_inc_return(&cur_id);
>>
>> Please note that id is int. Is it expected that cur_id could
>> overflow?
>> Is there a maximum limit for this value?
>>
> 
> Yes, we do expect cur_id to eventually overflow (once you have created
> 2 billion RPC client instances), however the atomic increment
> operations are expected to handle this correctly according to the
> maintainers (I already asked them in a different context). Furthermore,
> the code itself doesn't care about strict sequentiality. All it wants
> from the counter is uniqueness, with that uniqueness condition actually
> being enforced by the subsequent debugfs_create_file() call.
> 
> IOW: I don't think this is a real problem.
> 

Great. Thank you for a detailed explanation.

-- Shuah