Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1536511

Re: [PATCH 04/22] staging: lustre: osc: handle osc eviction correctly

Show all headers | View raw

On Dec 5, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:53:11PM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
>> @@ -3183,8 +3182,10 @@ static int discard_cb(const struct lu_env *env, struct cl_io *io,
>> 	/* page is top page. */
>> 	info->oti_next_index = osc_index(ops) + 1;
>> 	if (cl_page_own(env, io, page) == 0) {
>> -		KLASSERT(ergo(page->cp_type == CPT_CACHEABLE,
>> -			      !PageDirty(cl_page_vmpage(page))));
>> +		if (!ergo(page->cp_type == CPT_CACHEABLE,
>> +			  !PageDirty(cl_page_vmpage(page))))
>> +			CL_PAGE_DEBUG(D_ERROR, env, page,
>> +				      "discard dirty page?\n");
> 
> 
> I don't understand the point of the ergo macro.  There are way too many
> double negatives (some of them hidden for my small brain).  How is that
> simpler than just writing it out:
> 
> 	if (page->cp_type == CPT_CACHEABLE &&
> 	    PageDirty(cl_page_vmpage(page))
> 		 CL_PAGE_DEBUG(D_ERROR, env, page, "discard dirty page?\n");

I guess it makes it sound chic or something?
I am not a huge fan of it either, esp. in a case like this, though
it might be somewhat more convenient in assertions (where this is converted from).

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 04/22] staging: lustre: osc: handle osc eviction correctly James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org> - 2016-12-03 02:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 04/22] staging: lustre: osc: handle osc eviction correctly Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-12-05 22:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 04/22] staging: lustre: osc: handle osc eviction correctly Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com> - 2016-12-06 00:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 04/22] staging: lustre: osc: handle osc eviction  correctly James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org> - 2016-12-08 00:20 +0100

csiph-web