Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111397-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ilpo=20J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:00:28 +0200 (EET)
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
    Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>, 
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Maciej_Wiecz=F3r-Retman?= <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>, 
    Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] selftests/resctrl: Convert get_mem_bw_imc() fd
 close to for loop
In-Reply-To: <a263ee49-b987-90e2-c794-4d2af0ce50ca@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <2d75c1fc-3ff0-839b-996b-28fd4d02433c@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240311135230.7007-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <20240311135230.7007-2-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <832ec5e1-db5c-4123-8768-39ba9e6cca82@intel.com> <a263ee49-b987-90e2-c794-4d2af0ce50ca@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-207245466-1711108828=:1115"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-207245466-1711108828=:1115
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > On 3/11/2024 6:52 AM, Ilpo J=C3=A4rvinen wrote:
> > > The open() side handles fds in a for loop but close() is based on two
> > > fixed indexes READ and WRITE.
> > >=20
> > > Match the close() side with the open() side by using for loop for
> > > consistency.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> So to confirm are you suggesting I should remove all the other loops=20
> instead?

Nevermind, I read the comment to second patch, so the answer is yes. :-)

--=20
 i.

--8323328-207245466-1711108828=:1115--