Re: [PATCH 6/7] staging: lustre: obdclass: expand the GOTO macro + break

[Julia Lawall]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 06:18:34PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> > index f41695d..8a9752f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/obd_config.c
> > @@ -1226,25 +1226,25 @@ int class_process_config(struct lustre_cfg *lcfg)
> >  	}
> >  	case LCFG_POOL_NEW: {
> >  		err = obd_pool_new(obd, lustre_cfg_string(lcfg, 2));
> > -		GOTO(out, err = 0);
> > -		break;
> > +		err = 0;
> > +		goto out;
>
> [ Warning:  this email is long and not related to your code.  It's just
>   the frustrations of dealing with lustre.  ]
>
> So now the code reads:
>
> 		err = obd_pool_new(obd, lustre_cfg_string(lcfg, 2));
> 		err = 0;
>
> That was there in the original code, and your patch is correct to leave
> the suspicous looking code as is.  We used to have a GCC warning for
> this but the linux kernel source has too much bad code so we had to
> disable the warning.
>
> I wonder what happens if obd_pool_new() fails?  Unfortunately "make
> cscope" and "vim -t obd_pool_new" doesn't work with lustre so you have
> to grep for it.
>
> grep obd_pool_new drivers/staging/lustre/ -R |egrep '\.[ch]:'
>
> This is the only caller so we can't compare with the other callers to
> see if they check the return value.
>
> Here is how the obd_pool_new() function is implemented.
>
>   1051  static inline int obd_pool_new(struct obd_device *obd, char *poolname)
>   1052  {
>   1053          int rc;
>   1054
>   1055          OBD_CHECK_DT_OP(obd, pool_new, -EOPNOTSUPP);
>   1056          OBD_COUNTER_INCREMENT(obd, pool_new);
>   1057
>   1058          rc = OBP(obd, pool_new)(obd, poolname);
>   1059          return rc;
>   1060  }
>
> This whole function is just macros.  Let's see what they do:
>
>    460  #define OBD_CHECK_DT_OP(obd, op, err)                      \
>    461  do {                                                        \
>    462          if (!OBT(obd) || !OBP((obd), op)) {                  \
>    463                  if (err)                                        \
>    464                          CERROR("obd_" #op ": dev %d no operation\n",    \
>    465                                 obd->obd_minor);          \
>    466                  return err;                                 \
>    467          }                                                      \
>    468  } while (0)
>
> Wow!  What a terrible macro!  None of the '\' are in a line.  There is
> a hidden return statement in it which is a terrible thing and flow
> control statements are not allowed inside macros.
>
> I can't tell what OBT() and OBP() because the names are very ambiguous.
>
>    328  #define OBT(dev)        (dev)->obd_type
>    329  #define OBP(dev, op)    (dev)->obd_type->typ_dt_ops->o_ ## op
>    330  #define MDP(dev, op)    (dev)->obd_type->typ_md_ops->m_ ## op
>
> Ok.  "OB" stands for "obd".  T stands for "type".  The "P" probably
> stands for pointer or operation.  MD is clear enough.
>
> The OBP() macro adds an "o_" to the function pointer and the MDP() macro
> adds an "m_".  That totally sucks because it makes the function pointer
> hard to grep for.  There isn't another explanation, whoever wrote this
> code is just being ornery.
>
> Summary so far:  OBD_CHECK_DT_OP() checks to see if a function pointer
> is NULL.
>
> Let's see what OBD_COUNTER_INCREMENT() does.
>
>    361  #define OBD_COUNTER_INCREMENT(obdx, op)                    \
>    362          if ((obdx)->obd_stats != NULL) {                          \
>    363                  unsigned int coffset;                        \
>    364                  coffset = (unsigned int)((obdx)->obd_cntr_base) + \
>    365                          OBD_COUNTER_OFFSET(op);            \
>    366                  LASSERT(coffset < (obdx)->obd_stats->ls_num);     \
>    367                  lprocfs_counter_incr((obdx)->obd_stats, coffset); \
>    368          }
>    369
>
> That's a densely packed block of messy code but it basically does what
> you'd expect from the name.  Fair enough.
>
> So the obd_pool_new() function verifies that ->o_pool_new is non-NULL,
> it increments a counter and calls ->o_pool_new().  Let's take a look at
> which functions implement ->o_pool_new().
>
> grep -w o_pool_new drivers/staging/lustre/ -R | egrep '\.[ch]:'
>
> The only implementation of this function is lov_pool_new().  Why do
> we have a function pointer if there is only one implementation?  We
> should remove this.
>
> The lov_pool_new() function definitely can fail unexpectedly with
> -ENOMEM.
>
> Let's go back to the original code and see how the error should be
> handled...  Oh...  Apparently this is an optional thing so we would
> just ignore the error and continue.  The code is fine.
>
> In any other subsystem it would have taken 30 seconds to read the code
> because cscope would work and there wouldn't be the layers of
> indirection.
>
> I'm not convinced that having a function counter for calls to
> lov_pool_new() is useful.  We could get the same information from ftrace
> or other tools.  In my view, we could get rid of all the horrible macros
> and the function pointers and the splitting names into half and the
> layers of indirection and the debugging code and just call
> lov_pool_new() directly.

I will look into it.  I can try to study up on several of the functions,
and submit patches making a few changes, to be sure that I have not gotten
rid of anything that seems important.

If anyone knows the code well enough to know some of these
transformations in advance, that would  be very helpful.

julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/