From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eventfd: reorganize the code to simplify new flags
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:48:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9672A5.60004@gnu.org>
References: <cover.1250783333.git.mst@redhat.com> <20090820155703.GB8764@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: davidel@xmailserver.org, avi@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751891AbZH0LtL@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090820155703.GB8764@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 08/20/2009 05:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> +static inline int eventfd_writeable(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx, u64 n)
> +{
> +	return ULLONG_MAX - n>  ctx->count;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void eventfd_dowrite(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx, u64 ucnt)
> +{
> +	if (eventfd_writeable(ctx, ucnt))
> +		ucnt = ULLONG_MAX - ctx->count;
> +
> +	ctx->count += ucnt;

In any case, this usage of eventfd_writeable is wrong: the code was like 
this:

-	if (ULLONG_MAX - ctx->count < n)
-		n = (int) (ULLONG_MAX - ctx->count);
-	ctx->count += n;
+	eventfd_dowrite(ctx, n);

and so it should be !eventfd_writable.  (This smelled when I was editing 
patch 2, so I went back and checked patch 1).

Paolo