Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] drivers: staging: lustre: Use mult if units not specified
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 06:53:19AM -0600, Chris Rorvick wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter(a)oracle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:14:35AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, that isn't right. Chris' patch is actually doing the right
thing
> > to check for units > 1.
>
> It's not right because it discards the negative.
I don't think this patch introduces a bug. If anything, it was already
there.
The original code may be totally buggy. Who knows? Why are we passing
negative numbers here anyway instead of just returning -EINVAL? But the
new code is also buggy and not consistent with itself.
In the original code if the user data is "-1k" or "-1024" that was
treated the same. In the new code, "-1k" means negative 1024 because
the user supplies units but "-1024" means positive 1024 because there
are no units given.
> > The proposed change above discards "mult"
> > entirely, which breaks the users of this function that are not in this
> > file (e.g. osc_cached_mb_seq_write() or ll_max_cached_mb_seq_write())
> > that have tunables in units of MB by default, but can also use parameters
> > with units like "4.5G" for convenience.
>
> I think you are confusing lprocfs_write_frac_helper() and
> lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper(). There is only one caller for this
> function.
By this logic, lprocfs_write_frac_u64_helper() should just be removed
and it's code should be folded into lprocfs_write_u64_helper(), no?
There are vast swathes of lustre code which need to be deleted but I
haven't looked at this one. Probably.
regards,
dan carpenter