Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rusage: allow 64-bit times ru_utime/ru_stime
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-06-21 15:49:24
Also in:
linux-api, linux-arch, lkml
(belated reply) * Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
+int put_compat_rusage_time64(const struct __kernel_rusage *r,
+ struct compat_rusage_time64 __user *ru)
+{
+ struct compat_rusage_time64 r32;
+ memset(&r32, 0, sizeof(r32));
+ r32.ru_utime.tv_sec = r->ru_utime.tv_sec;
+ r32.ru_utime.tv_usec = r->ru_utime.tv_usec;
+ r32.ru_stime.tv_sec = r->ru_stime.tv_sec;
+ r32.ru_stime.tv_usec = r->ru_stime.tv_usec;
+ r32.ru_maxrss = r->ru_maxrss;
+ r32.ru_ixrss = r->ru_ixrss;
+ r32.ru_idrss = r->ru_idrss;
+ r32.ru_isrss = r->ru_isrss;
+ r32.ru_minflt = r->ru_minflt;
+ r32.ru_majflt = r->ru_majflt;
+ r32.ru_nswap = r->ru_nswap;
+ r32.ru_inblock = r->ru_inblock;
+ r32.ru_oublock = r->ru_oublock;
+ r32.ru_msgsnd = r->ru_msgsnd;
+ r32.ru_msgrcv = r->ru_msgrcv;
+ r32.ru_nsignals = r->ru_nsignals;
+ r32.ru_nvcsw = r->ru_nvcsw;
+ r32.ru_nivcsw = r->ru_nivcsw;Could you please vertically align the right side of the initialization as well? Much easier to check at a glance.
+ user_access_begin(); + unsafe_put_user(signo, &infop->si_signo, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(0, &infop->si_errno, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.cause, &infop->si_code, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.pid, &infop->si_pid, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.uid, &infop->si_uid, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.status, &infop->si_status, Efault); + user_access_end();
This too would look nicer the following way:
+ user_access_begin(); + unsafe_put_user(signo, &infop->si_signo, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(0, &infop->si_errno, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.cause, &infop->si_code, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.pid, &infop->si_pid, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.uid, &infop->si_uid, Efault); + unsafe_put_user(info.status, &infop->si_status, Efault); + user_access_end();
Which tabulated form made me notice the info.cause / si_code asymmetry - and a brief check of the source shows that it's correct. No way would I have noticed it in the jumbled up form above, so I think aligning such mass-initializations makes sense.
+ memset(&r, 0, sizeof(r)); + r.ru_utime.tv_sec = rk->ru_utime.tv_sec; + r.ru_utime.tv_usec = rk->ru_utime.tv_usec; + r.ru_stime.tv_sec = rk->ru_stime.tv_sec; + r.ru_stime.tv_usec = rk->ru_stime.tv_usec; + r.ru_maxrss = rk->ru_maxrss; + r.ru_ixrss = rk->ru_ixrss; + r.ru_idrss = rk->ru_idrss; + r.ru_isrss = rk->ru_isrss; + r.ru_minflt = rk->ru_minflt; + r.ru_majflt = rk->ru_majflt; + r.ru_nswap = rk->ru_nswap; + r.ru_inblock = rk->ru_inblock; + r.ru_oublock = rk->ru_oublock; + r.ru_msgsnd = rk->ru_msgsnd; + r.ru_msgrcv = rk->ru_msgrcv; + r.ru_nsignals = rk->ru_nsignals; + r.ru_nvcsw = rk->ru_nvcsw; + r.ru_nivcsw = rk->ru_nivcsw;
Ditto. Thanks, Ingo